Gujarat High Court
Navinbhai Karshanbhai Sojitra vs State Of Gujarat on 28 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025
undefined
Reserved On: 13/08/2025
Pronounced On : 28/11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1013 of 2005
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NAVINBHAI KARSHANBHAI SOJITRA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
HL PATEL ADVOCATES(2034) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 28/11/2025
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The present Revisional Application has been preferred by the petitioner - original accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment of conviction passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Pardi in Criminal Case No. 440 of 2000 by judgment and order dated 08.07.2005, whereby the Page 1 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as "the Old Act") and Section 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for each offence, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The said judgment of conviction has been confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Valsad in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2005 vide order dated 20.12.2005.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that a complaint was given by the original complainant before Pardi Police Station alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 39 of the Old Act and Section 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner- accused No.1 - Mr. Navinbhai Karshanbhai Sojitra, and accused No.2 - Mr. Mansukhbhai A. Thummar. On the basis of the said complaint, an offence came to be registered as I. C.R. No. 15 of 2000, alleging theft of Page 2 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined electricity by the petitioner, for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 39 of the Old Act.
3. Thereafter, upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against both the accused persons, and the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 440 of 2000. Both the accused, including the present petitioner, pleaded not guilty, whereupon the matter proceeded for trial and by the judgment and order dated 08.07.2005, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pardi convicted the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for each of the said offences, and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months. The co-accused, Accused No.2 - Mansukhbhai A. Thummar, was acquitted of all the charges levelled Page 3 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined against him.
4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Magistrate, the present petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Valsad vide Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2005 and the said appeal came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court and affirmed the judgment of the learned Magistrate dated 20.12.2005 confirmed the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate Judicial Magistrate First Class at Pardi. Hence, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of both the Courts below, the present petitioner - original accused preferred the present Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Heard learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. H.L. Patel, submitted that there is no evidence on record to establish that the premises in question belonged to the present petitioner. It is submitted that no documentary proof regarding the ownership or possession of the said Page 4 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined premises by the petitioner has been produced by the prosecution, and therefore, there is no material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence has been produced. It is further submitted that although the prosecution has claimed that the petitioner was in charge or the administrator of the said premises, the learned Trial Court has erroneously held that the petitioner was also the power of attorney holder, even though no such power of attorney has been produced on record for reasons best known to the prosecution, creates a serious doubt, and in the absence of such material, there is no conclusive evidence linking the petitioner with the property concerned. Learned advocate further submitted that in view of Sections 101 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies squarely upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the prosecution has mainly relied upon an alleged confessional statement of the consumer, purportedly involving the petitioner. However, the petitioner has, from the very beginning, lodged his Page 5 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined protest and objection to such confessional statements, asserting that his signature was obtained merely as part of the procedural formality and that the alleged confession was not voluntary. It is submitted that the petitioner has consistently retracted the said confession before the Trial Court, and since the prosecution has failed to prove that the statement was made voluntarily, it cannot form the basis of conviction. In support of his submissions, learned advocate has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2008) 16 SCC 417, wherein it has been held that a confession must be shown to have been made voluntarily, and the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove such voluntariness. Failing this, the confession is hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
6. Further, it is submitted that both the Courts below have relied upon the confession, which is not admissible in evidence. Further, it is submitted that the complainant Page 6 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined has not obtained any permission to file such complaint even though, after the complaint was filed, the trial proceeded, but the complainant did not produce any proof of permission from the higher authorized officer. This is in violation of Section 50 of the Electricity Act, and for that he is relying upon the following authorities:
1. Avtar Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1965 SC 666;
2. Suresh Ramanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1979 (1) GLR 391;
3. State of Gujarat vs. Shanabhai Bhaijibhai Patel, reported in 1985 (2) GLR 1103; and
4. State of Gujarat vs. Shabirbhai Ahemadbhai Shaikh, reported in 2018 (4) GLR 3295.
It is submitted that there is a clear-cut violation of Section 50, and hence the complainant had no authority to file the complaint, and therefore the entire prosecution is required to be quashed and set aside.
Page 7 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined
7. Further, it is submitted that as per the charge at Exh.6, the alleged offences were committed with the abetment of the another accused, and therefore charges were framed against two accused. In the trial, accused No.2, who was also charged along with the present petitioner, has been acquitted, and against that acquittal no appeal or revision application has been preferred. Hence, accused No. 1 could not have been convicted for the same charge without a finding of abetment. Therefore also, the judgments of the learned Courts below are devoid of proper consideration of this aspect, and merely on the basis of the examination-in-chief of the employee of the Gujarat Energy Development Board the judgment has been passed. Hence, both the Courts have committed an error in convicting the present petitioner, the judgment is perverse, and it is required to be quashed and set aside, and the present petitioner is required to be acquitted.
8. On the other hand, learned advocate for the Page 8 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined respondent No. 2 - original complainant, Ms.Lilu K. Bhaya, submitted that in the present case in hand, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the learned Magistrate has found sufficient evidence and recorded the findings, and held that the charges against the present petitioner have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the present petitioner has been convicted under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, it is submitted that the present petitioner has not even paid the amount of the bills. It is further submitted that two incidents had taken place: the first on 13.01.2000 and the second incident on 19.01.2000. On both occasions, the present petitioner was found committing theft of electricity. Hence, considering this, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the present petitioner. Thereafter, the same was challenged by preferring an appeal before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court has not found merit in the appeal; the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment of Page 9 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined conviction passed by the trial Court has been confirmed. It is submitted that, so far as the present petitioner is concerned, there are concurrent findings of conviction by both the Courts and therefore the scope of this Court in revision is very narrow, and unless and until the Court finds that the judgment is against the settled principles of law or is perverse, only in such circumstances can it be interfered with. At this stage, the oral evidence cannot be re-appreciated. Hence, it is submitted that the present revision application is devoid of merits and requires to be dismissed and set aside.
9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that Revision Application is devoid of any merit and required to be dismissed.
10. After hearing the rival submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties, and after perusing the judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as the judgment of the appellate Court, and also the record and evidence, it appears that in the present case in hand, Page 10 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined it is an established fact that the present petitioner is facing concurrent findings of conviction by the Magistrate Court and the District Court. So far as the scope of revision at this stage is concerned, it is very narrow. Unless and until it is found that the judgment passed by the learned Courts is against the settled principles of law or is perverse or erroneous, only in such circumstances can this Court interfere with the findings recorded by the Courts below.
11. Keeping in mind the aforesaid settled legal position, it is necessary to examine the factual matrix of the present case. The record reveals that the first written complaint was submitted by Mr. Jayeshkumar Dineshbhai Tanna, Deputy Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, GIDC Sub-Division, Vapi. On 12.01.2000, he addressed a written complaint to the Police Inspector, GIDC Police Station, Vapi, stating that Plot No. 809/H/R, situated in Chanod Colony, GIDC, Vapi, stands in the name of Consumer Plastics, is being administered by Mr. Page 11 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined Navinbhai Karshanbhai Sojitra, resident of Aradhna Apartment, who had obtained an ad-hoc electricity connection for construction purposes in the said plot. It was further alleged that on 13.01.2000, during inspection by the Junior Engineers of the Electricity Board, the seals of the temporary connection meter were found tampered with, indicating commission of electricity theft. The inspecting staff thereafter removed the meter, disconnected the electricity supply, and issued a bill of Rs. 1,03,039.06 to the accused. Subsequently, on 19.01.2000, upon further inspection, the complainant and other officials of the Electricity Board found that on the said plot where Yogeshwar Apartment had been constructed by the accused 16 flats had already been built and further construction was in progress. It was noticed that the accused had taken an illegal direct connection from the transformer located near the compound wall of Yogeshwar Apartment. Without any electric meter, wires had been connected directly to the transformer and electricity was being unlawfully Page 12 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined consumed. The officials also obtained a confessional statement from Mr. Navinbhai Karshanbhai Sojitra and recorded the entire raid proceedings, including video recording. A further a bill of Rs. 98,734/- was issued in respect of the said illegal use of electricity. In view of these, a written complaint was given by Mr. Jayeshkumar Dineshbhai Tanna on 22.01.2000 before the GIDC Police Station, Vapi, requesting initiation of criminal proceedings against Mr. Navinbhai Karshanbhai Sojitra and Mr. Mansukhbhai Ambabhai Kumar for offences punishable under Sections 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Pursuant to the said complaint, investigation was undertaken and a charge-sheet came to be filed against the present petitioner and the co-accused for the aforementioned offences.
12. The learned Magistrate has framed charge against the accused persons vide Exh.6, and mainly the charge has been framed by the Court against both the accused Page 13 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined persons that on 13.01.2000 and on 19.01.2000 at about 12:20 p.m. at Mouse Vapi, Udyognagar, at Plot No. 809/H/Yogeshwar Apartment, both the accused had directly connected electricity from the transformer of the Electricity Board, and thereby they were found committing theft of electricity, and they had committed the offence under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the prosecution examined a total of 8 witnesses, mainly:
PW-1 Jayeshkumar Dineshbhai Tanna (Complainant) - Exh. 12;
PW-2 Virendra Dhansukhbhai Chauhan - Exh. 24; PW-3 Anilbhai Madarbhai Patel - Exh. 25; PW - 4 Pragatish Chandrakant Shah - Exh. 27; PW -5 Ashokbhai Ramanbhai Mali - Exh. 29; PW - 6 Maheshbhai Jivanbhai Patel - Exh. 34; PW - 7 Vijaybhai Laxmanbhai Patel- Exh. 38; PW - 8 Arvindbhai Shantilal Navagamiya - Exh. 44. Page 14 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined A total of 4 documents have been relied upon by the prosecution, mainly:
1. Statement of the consumer (Exh. 13).
2. Confessional statement/Admission (Exh. 14).
3. Police complaint (Exh. 15).
4. Panchnama of the place of offence (Exh. 39).
After the evidence of the prosecution was completed and after hearing the rival submissions of the respective advocates of both the side the learned Magistrate convicted the present petitioner for the offences punishable under Section Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo 1 year's imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, 2 months simple imprisonment and whereas accused No. 2 was acquitted. The said judgment was challenged by preferring an Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2005 before the District Court, and the District Court dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision Page 15 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined application has been preferred.
13. Considering the above factual aspects, the argument pertaining to violation of Section 50 is that the complainant was not authorized to file a complaint under the Old Act. The learned advocate has relied upon certain authorities, and it appears that the said aspect has already been considered by the Sessions Court in the appeal. As regards the Old Act, there was an amendment on 12.08.1986 in Section 50, and in Section 50 of the Principal Act, after the word "Government," the words "or the State Electricity Board" have been inserted. Therefore, all the authorities on which the learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon prior to the amendment in 1986. Hence, the argument of the learned advocate for the petitioner that Section 50 has not been complied with and permission has not been sought from the higher authority does not carry any force, as there was an amendment in the Old Act in the year 1986. In the present case, as per the allegations, the offence has been Page 16 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined committed in the year 2000.
14. Now, the other argument advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner is regarding the fact that the present petitioner has been convicted on the ground that he was the administrator / power of attorney holder of the construction known as Yogeshwar Apartment. In that regard, it is an admitted position that no documentary evidence has been produced by any of the witnesses, and even the Investigating Officer has not clarified in what capacity the present petitioner was connected with the said building whether as an occupier, owner, administrator, or power of attorney holder.
15. Further, from the evidence and from the case of the prosecution, it is very much clear that on 13.01.2000 and on 19.01.2000, the electricity theft was found in Plot No. 809/H/R Yogeshwar Apartment, Udyognagar Area, Vapi. As per the complaint, it has been stated by the complainant that the present petitioner is the Page 17 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined administrator of the said plot, which is in the name of the firm - Consumer Plastic, and the present petitioner is the administrator of the said firm. It is also stated that in the said plot, there is a construction consisting of 16 residential flats. In this regard, it is now required to consider the oral evidence given by the complainant - Mr. Jayeshkumar, who has been examined vide Exh.12. As per his deposition, he has not stated anything that when on 19.01.2000 they reached the place of scene of offence, the present petitioner came there, and thereafter, on the checking sheet and on the statement of the consumer and the confession statement, the signature of the present petitioner was taken. However, he has not uttered a single word regarding in what capacity the present petitioner is connected with the said building, i.e., Yogeshwar Apartment - whether he is the owner, occupier, or power of attorney holder. In the cross- examination, the said witness has stated that the present petitioner has been given a power of attorney for administration of this plot/building, but nothing has been Page 18 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined produced, and he admitted that he has not given a copy of the power of attorney to the police. Further, another witness, who is also a member of the raiding party, namely Virendra Dhansukhbhai Chauhan, examined vide Exh.24, has deposed that he was also present at the premises on 19.01.2000. He has further stated that the he had also gone for the raid on the said Apartment on 13.01.2000, and as per his deposition, the present petitioner is the administrator of the Consumer Plastic building, and they found that the body seal of the electric meter was tampered, and they seized the said meter and issued a bill of Rs.1,03,000/-. He has further stated that on 19.01.2000, again he himself and the complainant visited the said premises, and at that time, it was found that direct electricity connection had been joined from the distribution box of the transformer. It has also come in his evidence that in this building of Consumer Plastic, 26 flats were there, out of which 13 flat-holders were residing and they had not taken any electricity connection, and therefore, a bill for electricity theft was Page 19 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined issued. Another witness, who is also an employee of the Electricity Company, Mr.Anilbhai Madarbhai Patel, examined vide Exh.25, has also stated the same facts as the other two witnesses, but he also has not uttered a single word regarding under what capacity the present petitioner was connected with the said premises. Another witness, Mr. Pragatish Chandrakant Shah, examined vide Exh.27, has stated that the meter has been issued in the name of owner of Consumer Plastic and the present petitioner, Mr. Navinbhai Sojitra, is the owner of Consumer Plastic, and he was also present on 13.01.2000 and also on 19.01.2000. Thus, all the witnesses have stated the same facts, and one another witness has also been examined who visited on 13.01.2000. Considering the overall evidence of the witnesses, it is an admitted position that the building known as Yogeshwar Apartment or the plot is concerned, as per the case of the prosecution, is being owned by the present petitioner as the owner or administrator of this plot. The said plot is in the name of Consumer Plastic, and the present petitioner Page 20 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined is either the administrator or owner or power of attorney holder of the said plot, but no documentary evidence has been produced to prove this fact that how the petitioner is connected with the said plot.
16. Further, it is interesting to note that as per the case of the prosecution, on 13.01.2000, when for the first time they visited the said premises, it was found that some electricity theft had been committed, and therefore, they seized the meter and also prepared the checking sheet or inspection sheet and issued a bill to the present petitioner. Thereafter, on 19.01.2000, again when they reached the said premises, the present petitioner was called, and subsequently his statement as the consumer was recorded, and his confession statement was recorded, and a bill was issued. But surprisingly, so far as the incident pertaining to 13.01.2000 is concerned, not a single document has been produced by the prosecution showing what was found when they visited the premises on 13.01.2000 except bare words not a single document Page 21 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined has been produced. In this regard, the prosecution has examined PW-2 - Virendra Dhansukhbhai Chauhan, whose deposition is required to be considered. In the cross-examination, he admitted that it is true that regarding the first incident of 13.01.2000, the complainant of the present case has no personal knowledge, and the electricity connection had been given in the name of Consumer Plastic. He further stated that on 13.01.2000, they seized the meter of the said premises and prepared a panchnama in the presence of two witnesses, one of whom was the brother of the accused. After seizing the meter, it was sent to the laboratory for testing. Further, another witness, Mr. Pragatish Chandrakant Shah, examined vide Exh.27, in his cross- examination, has stated that on 13.01.2000, they went for checking and at that time they prepared a checking sheet. Thus, from these witnesses, it is coming on record that on 13.01.2000, when the raid was conducted, the meter was seized, a panchnama was prepared, and a checking sheet was prepared. It is an admitted position Page 22 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined that at that time no complaint had been given, or even if it had been given, those documents have not been produced in the present case. The case of the prosecution is that electricity theft was committed on 13.01.2000 and 19.01.2000, and for that this FIR has been filed. However, regarding the incident of 13.01.2000, no document has been produced, even though the prosecution was in possession of those documents, namely the panchnama, the checking sheet, etc., but none of them have been produced pertaining to 13.01.2000.
17. Further, the incident as per the case of the prosecution has taken place on 13.01.2000 and 19.01.2000, whereas the complaint came to be filed on 21.01.2000, and no satisfactory reason for the delay has been given in the complaint. Further, as the plot is in the name of Consumer Plastic, which is a firm, how the present petitioner is concerned with the said premises either in the capacity of an occupier, owner, power of attorney holder, or administrator is concerned, nothing Page 23 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined has come on record. Further, before the trial Court, so far as the statement of the consumer and the confession statement are concerned, both these documents have been produced vide Exh.13 and Exh.14. The present petitioner has signed both the documents under protest. In the statement of the consumer, he has signed under protest, and in Exh.14, which is the confessional statement, it is specifically stated that the said confession is objectionable and that he has signed under protest; therefore, it is not voluntary. Further, it is an established fact that the said plot, as alleged by the prosecution, is in the name of Consumer Plastic, which is a firm, but the firm has not been joined as an accused. Further, as per Section 39 of the old Act, it pertains to theft of energy.
Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as "the Old Act") "Whoever dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy shall be deemed to have committed theft within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code;
and the existence of artificial means for such abstraction shall be prima facie evidence of such dishonest abstraction." Page 24 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined
18. So, looking to the Section itself, it is very clear that there must be dishonest abstraction by the accused. But in the present case in hand, except the allegation, nothing has come on record to show in what capacity the present petitioner was connected with the said premises, or whether he had joined any wires directly from the transformer. This is not coming out from the evidence of any of the witnesses. It is established that in the said building, there are 16 residential flats, and some persons were occupying those flats, and they were also using electricity in their flats without a meter. Therefore, whether the present petitioner-accused has dishonestly abstracted electricity or committed theft is concerned, the said fact has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt as discussed above.
19. Considering the above discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge and both the Courts have miserably failed to consider the aspect Page 25 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined regarding how the petitioner has been concerned or associated with the said building. Even the learned Trial Court and the Appellate Court have stated that the present petitioner is the power of attorney holder, but no such document has been produced before the Court. Even as per the case of the prosecution, on 13.01.2000 also there was an incident of electricity theft, and at that time the meter was seized, panchnama was drawn, checking sheet was prepared, and bill was issued to the petitioner, but no document pertaining to 13.01.2000 has been produced before the Court. Except the bare wording, nothing has been brought on record before the Court, and there is no direct evidence against the present petitioner that he is involved in the commission of theft of energy or has dishonestly abstracted or consumed the electricity. Hence, considering this, the findings recorded by both the Courts are perverse as both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. The Company has not been joined as an accused when the commission of the offence is attributed Page 26 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1013/2005 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 28/11/2025 undefined to the meter issued in the name of Consumer Plastic, i.e. a Company. Hence, the findings recorded by both the Courts require interference.
20. As discussed above, the present revision application is hereby allowed. The judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Pardi in Criminal Case No. 440 of 2000 convicting the present applicant under Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code dated 08.07.2005, and the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2005 dated 20.05.2005 confirming the judgment of conviction by the Trial Court, are hereby quashed and set aside. The present petitioner is hereby acquitted from all the charges. Rule is made absolute.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) STANCY GOMES Page 27 of 27 Uploaded by STANCY GOMES(HC02364) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 29 00:37:38 IST 2025