Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Anopsing @ Anubha Gagaji Pingal on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1687 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ANOPSING @ ANUBHA GAGAJI PINGAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 07/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (GEB) Case No. 13/2009 on 26.07.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 135 of The Indian Electricity Act, 2003. 1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as "the Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined accused" as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:
2.1 On 16.12.2004, the officers of the GEB visited the residence of the accused situated in village Meghpar, Taluka Lalpur, District Jamnagar and found that the accused had directly connected a red color wire to the electricity pole of the low tension line and had taken it to his residence and was directly consuming a total load of 1.375 watts of electricity illegally and had in all committed theft of electricity of Rs. 57,646.49/- paisa. The complaint was filed by Hitesh Lakshmidas Hindocha, Deputy Engineer GEB Kalawad Subdivision at the GEB Police Station Rajkot under Section 135 of the Electricity Act which came to be registered as GEB Police Station II - C.R. No. 817 of 2005. 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined First Class, Lalpur and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Jamnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special (GEB) Case No. 13/2009.
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 charge at Exh. 4 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 5, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 4 witnesses and produced 6 documentary evidence and after the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined the prosecution on record. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the learned Trial Court has not considered the oral and documentary evidences in proper perspective and has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has not considered the evidences produced on record and even though there is nothing on record to prove the charge against the accused, the learned Trial Court has disbelieved the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined law and hence, the impugned judgement and order must be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant State. Though served, the respondent has not remained present either in person or through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and has submitted that the complainant has fully supported the facts of his complaint and the evidence proves that the offence beyond reasonable doubts. The impugned judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondent guilty for the offences.
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 regarding the scope of Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined interference in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, 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".
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 acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined 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 circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (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 available 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 acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, 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.
Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same.
8. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 - Hitesh Laxmidas Hindocha at Exh. 10 and the witness is the complainant who has produced the calculation sheet at Exh. 11 and the bill of theft of electricity at Exh. 12. The witness has stated that on 16.12.2004, the Kalawad Subdivision Deputy Engineer H.B. Rangwani and other members of the line Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined staff had gone for checking at the Meghpar village of Lalpur Taluka and had checked the house of the accused and found that he was committing a theft of electricity with a five meter red colour cable. The procedure was done at the spot and the supplementary bill of theft of electricity was given which was not paid and he had filed the complaint which is produced at Exh. 13. During the cross- examination the witness has admitted that the checking was done on 16.12.2004 and the complaint was filed on 04.02.2005 and there is no explanation for the delay in filing the complaint. The witness has also admitted that he did not take the permission of any authority before filing the complaint and did not inform the Investigating Officer to seize the muddamal. No panchnama was drawn in the presence of any independent panch witnesses and no documents to show that the place where the theft of electricity had taken place, was in the ownership or possession of the accused, were seized. The government has formed a squad for checking of theft of electricity but the person who had gone for checking was not a member of the Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined checking squad. The number of the electricity pole has not been mentioned in any of the documents and at the time of seizing the muddamal wire, no panchnama was drawn in the presence of independent panch witnesses. 8.1 PW2 - Himmatlal Balubhai Rangani examined at Exh. 14 was working as the Deputy Engineer of PGVCL, Kalawad Subdivision and on 16.12.2004 he had checked the electricity connection at the residence of the accused and found theft of electricity being taken place. The victim has produced the rojkam at Exh. 15 and the checking sheet at Exh. 16. In the cross examination the witness has admitted that no authorization for checking was given by any authority and no panchnama for seizure of the muddamaal was done in the presence of any independent persons. He was not authorized in writing to go for checking and has not recorded the statements of any neighbors where the checking had taken place. Moreover, they did not seize any documents showing that the place where the electricity was checked was in the possession or ownership of the accused. Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined The witness has admitted that the Gujarat Government has not authorized him to go for checking.
8.2 PW3 - Prahladray Govindram Valera examined at Exh. 17 is the PSO who has registered the complaint and has produced the FIR at Exh. 18.
8.3 PW4 - Ranjitsing Kuldipsinh Lubana examined at Exh. 21 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. In the cross examination the witness has admitted that he has not seized any muddamaal and has not drawn any panchnama of the place of offence and has not recorded the statements of any independent witnesses. The complainant did not give any authority that he had received for filing the complaint and he was not present at the time when the checking had taken place. There were no documents seized to show that the place where the theft of electricity had taken place was in the possession or ownership of the accused.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the electricity connection at the house of the accused was checked on 16.12.2004 and the complaint was Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined filed on 04.02.2005. There is no explanation for the delay in filing the complaint and the complainant - PW1 - Hitesh Lakshmidas Hindocha was not present at the time of the checking but has merely filed the complaint. Moreover, in the entire evidence there is no iota of evidence that the place that was checked belonged to the accused or that he was the owner or in possession of the place. The place as per the case of the prosecution was a residential house in Meghpar village of Lalpur Taluka, District Jamnagar and there may be other residences nearby but no independent witnesses have been examined to prove that the checking of electricity had in fact taken place. There is no panchnama drawn of the seizure of any muddamal and PW2 - Himmatlal Balubhai Rangani has stated that they had seized the red colour wire but no such wire has been produced before the learned Trial Court. PW4 - Ranjitsing Kuldipsinh Lubana - the Investigating Officer has categorically stated that he has not seized any muddamal and has not drawn any panchnama of the place of offence Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:28 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined and there was no permission given to the complainant to file the complaint.
10. In view of the settled position of law, the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned 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.
Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:28 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar in Special (GEB) Case No. 13/2009 on 26.07.2012, 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) VASIM S. SAIYED Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:28 IST 2025