Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mohmed Hafiz Abdul Latif Vohra on 11 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1108 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MOHMED HAFIZ ABDUL LATIF VOHRA
================================================================
Appearance:
MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 11/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge, (Electricity), Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') dated 13.04.2010 in Special (Electricity) Case No.11 of 2009 , whereby, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under Page 1 of 16 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:09:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined Sections 135(1)(B) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as 'the accused' as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. The complainant Ramanbhai Joitabhai Patel was working as Deputy Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'GEB'), Sub-Division Vijapur and the accused was a consumer of electricity of GEB and was given Consumer No.21701/01137/9. On 24-01-2008 at around 7.30am, Junior Engineer M.R.Patel, A.R.Solanki and Lineman M.G.Katara, on the instructions of the complainant Ramanbhai Joitabhai Patel, had gone for checking of electricity connections in Vijapur town and had checked the electricity connection of the accused. It was found that the accused had cut the service line, which was coming from the electricity connection of single phase meter, and taken it to the main switch in the bathroom and had directly connected the electricity connection by-passing the meter by a 1/18 red color Page 2 of 16 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:09:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined wire. The accused was committing theft of electricity and after the due procedure, it was found that a theft of electricity of Rs.11,562.73 paise was committed, and as earlier too, on 18-06-
2005, the accused was caught committing theft of electricity, the complainant filed a complaint, which came to be registered as Sabarmati GEB Police Station, II-C.R.No.105 of 2008 under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act.
2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, a chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion of the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Mehsana and the same was registered as Special (Electricity) Case No.11 of 2009. 2.3. The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:09:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.5 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.6, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution has examined 05 witnesses and has produced 15 documentary evidences in support of the case.
2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh32, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence and refused to step into the witness box and lead evidence. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 135(1)(B) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by learned the Trial Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:09:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumptions, not permitted by law. The learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused though there are ample and cogent evidence to connect the accused with the crime and the offence registered against him. The learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record in its true spirit. The learned Trial Court has erroneously came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, invalid, improper, perverse and bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr.Piyush Trivedi for learned advocate Mr.Pratik Barot for the respondent No.2. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:09:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined
5. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence and impose maximum sentence on the accused.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 : Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:09:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) ........ From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;] (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of ac- quittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong cir-
cumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an ap- pellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phrase- ologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to in- terfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own con- clusion.
(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence avail- able to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquit- Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:09:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined tal, the presumption of his innocence is further rein- forced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
7. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality of perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:09:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
8. As the case of the prosecution is a case of theft of electricity, the prosecution has to prove that the accused has actually committed the theft of electricity and PW-1, Ramanbhai Joitabhai Patel examined at Exh.8 is the complainant, who has produced the complaint at Exh.14. The witness did not go for checking of the electricity connections and has stated that the consumer of electricity was Mohammadbhai Adambhai, who had expired and the possession of the house was with his nephew, Mohammad Hafiz Abdulmiyan, in whose presence, the officers had checked the electricity connection, and after the due procedure, bill of theft of Rs.11,652/- was given. The witness has produced the bill at Exh.9, the Annexure-C at Exh.10, the earlier bill dated 21.06.2005 at Exh.11, notice given for the earlier theft at Exh.12 and the proforma in the earlier case at Exh.13. The witness Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:09:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined has also produced the checking sheet dated 24-01-2008 at Exh.15. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that he has not produced any authority to file the complaint and he had no personal knowledge of the checking that had taken place on 24.01.2018 or the theft of electricity that had taken place on 18.06.2005. In the complaint, he has not stated that the consumer of electricity had expired and has not stated that the accused was the owner or occupier of the house. In the complaint, he has not stated that the cable and meter box were given and the assessment bill and notice and the procedure of assessment bill and notice was done in the name of Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai Vohra. The amount was paid and the reconnection of the electricity was also done, and in the conversation, he had come to know that Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai Vohra had expired. In the checking sheet produced at Exh.15, there is no description of the house that was checked and no address of the home.
8.1. PW-2 Mithabhai Ramanbhai examined at Exh.16 was a member of the Checking Squad that had gone for checking on 24.01.2008 and he has identified the accused and the other Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:09:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined documents including the notice produced at Exh.17. In the cross examination, the witness has admitted that the document produced at Exh.15, which is the checking sheet does not give the address in Vijapur and also the time when the electricity connection was checked. There is also no mention regarding the persons who were residing in the house and the signature of the consumer is not taken in Column-10 of the checking sheet. Moreover, it is not clearly mentioned that the signature of the representative of the consumer was taken and in the notice produced at Exh.17, the complete address of the accused or the consumer is not given. The place that they had checked was in a residential area and there were a number of residences surrounding the property and they had not written the census number on the documents.
8.2. PW-3 Rajendraprasad Chandulal Desai examined at Exh.20 was also a member of the checking squad and he has produced the checking sheet dated 18.06.2005 which is the document of the first theft committed by the accused. In the cross- examination, the witness has admitted that in the document Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:09:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined produced at Exh.21, it is not mentioned that the house of the accused was checked and the number of the pole, from which, the theft of electricity was taking place is not mentioned. That the meter and wire were seized but the same is not mentioned in the document produced at Exh.21 and the signature of the consumer is not taken in the same.
8.3. PW-4 Sajjansinh Manuji Chavda examined at Exh.24 is the P.S.O., Sabarmati GEB Police Station, who has registered the complaint of the complainant. The witness has admitted that along with the complaint, no muddamal was sent to the police station. 8.4. PW-5 Prabhatsinh Kodarsinh Rathod examined at Exh.27 is the Investigating Officer, who stated that after he had taken over the investigation, he had gone to the house of the accused and found that Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai Vohra had expired on 09.09.1989 and the statements of the family members and neighbours were taken that he had expired. The witness has in the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the complaint does not mention the street and the place of offence is merely mentioned as 'Kasba'. The complaint and the checking sheet do Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:09:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined not mention the house number and even in the statements of the witnesses, no house number is mentioned. No panchnama of the place of offence was drawn during the checking procedure.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the evidence, the first checking was done on 18-06-2005 and the second checking was done on 24.01.2008. As per the complaint produced at Exh.14, Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai Vhora was the consumer of electricity and was given electricity connection No.21701/01137/9. The case has been filed against Mohammed Hafiz Abdul Latif Vhora and from the documents i.e. bill produced at Exh.9, the checking sheet produced at Exh.15 and the notice produced at Exh.17, all these documents bear the name of Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai Vhora, who as per the deposition of PW-5 Prabhatsinh Kodarsinh Rathor, the Investigating Officer had expired on 09.09.1989. The complaint produced at Exh.15 has also been filed in the name of the deceased Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai Vhora and the Investigating Officer has produced a letter written to the Nagarpalika, Vijapur Nagarpalika Burro, at Exh.29 seeking for information regarding Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:09:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai Vhora, the details of Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai Vhora and the letter of Vijapur Nagarpalika produced at at Exh.30 has been received, wherein, in para-5, it is stated that house No.3.5132 in the name of Vhora Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai was in the occupation of his nephews Mohammed Hafiz Abdul Latif Vhora, Mohammed Rafiq Abdul Latif Vhora and Mohammed Iqbal Abdul Latif Vhora. Hence, as per the evidence, it has come on record that on 24.01.2008, when the checking was done by PW-2 Mithabhai Ramanbhai and PW-3 Rajendraprasad Chandulal Desai, the consumer, in whose name, electricity connection No.21701/ 01137/9 was given had already expired on 09.09.1989. The prosecution has come up with a case that earlier on 18.06.2005, the first checking was done and it was found that theft of electricity had taken place and the earlier notice is produced at Exh.12, bill at Exh.11 and proforma at Exh.13, but all these documents bear the name of Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai Vhora, who had expired on 09.09.1989. From the evidence, it is proved that the officers of the GEB were well aware on 18.06.2005, when they had done the first checking of electricity at consumer No.21701/01137/9 that the consumer Mohammedbhai Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:09:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined Ahmedbhai Vhora had expired, and thereafter, again the checking has been done on 24.01.2008 and the procedure was done in the name of the same consumer but the case has been filed against the present accused. In the document at Exh.30, which is the letter of the Nagarpalika, it states that the house of Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai Vhora was in the possession of his three nephews Mohammed Hafeez Abdul Latif Vhora, Mohammed Rafiq Abdul Latif Vhora and Mohammed Iqbal Abdul Latif Vhora, but the case has been filed only against the present accused. In the further statement, it has been the defence of the accused that he was not residing in the house and was only a neighbour and even in the further statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the same defence has been taken and there is nothing forthcoming on record that the accused was in possession of the house where the checking had taken place on the date of on 24-01-2008.
10. In view of the above, the leanred trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:09:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined judgment and order of acquittal. The leanred Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the leanred Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the leanred Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the leanred trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the leanred Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
11. The impugned judgment and the order dated 13.04.2010 in Special (Electricity) Case No.11 of 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Electricity), Mehsana is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S.KAZI.....
Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Tue Jul 15 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 15 22:09:57 IST 2025