Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ladhabhai Devshibhai Khant on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1596 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
LADHABHAI DEVSHIBHAI KHANT
==========================================================
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 and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Electricity Case No. 81/2008 on 29.05.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 135(1) 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 01:36:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1596/2012 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 03.02.2006, the Officers of the Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (DGVCL) checked the residence of the accused at Satyamnagar in Kamrej village and found that the accused was not a consumer of electricity but had illegally joined a wire to the electricity pole and the low tension line, and was illegally consuming electricity. The accused had consumed a total load of 210 watts, 1440 units of electricity and had committed theft of electricity of Rs.
15,786.90/- paise. The complainant - Velagala China Venkata Reddy, Deputy Engineer, DGVCL, Kamrej Sub- Division filed a complaint on 18.02.2006 at the DGVCL South Zone, Surat Police Station under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act which came to be registered on 23.02.2006 at the DGVCL South Zone, Surat Police Station II - C.R. No. 198 of 2006.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined 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 First Class, Kathor and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Surat as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Electricity Case No. 81/2008.
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. 6 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 7, 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 8 documentary evidence and after the learned APP filed the Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined 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 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 Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined 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 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. Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined
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 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;
Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined (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 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.
Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined (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. 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. In view of the settled principles of law in acquittal appeals, the evidence in reappreciated and to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined PW1 - Kishore Kalidas Parmar at Exh. 8. The witness was working as a Junior Engineer at DGVCL and he had gone along with Junior Engineer - S.B. Patel to the Satyamnagar, Kamrej and had checked the electricity connection at the house of the accused. They found that the accused was consuming electricity even though he was not a consumer of electricity and the bulb, fans, tube lights and other household electric equipments were being used and there was no meter at his house. The procedure was done and thereafter, the complaint was filed by Velagala China Venkata Reddy, Deputy Engineer, DGVCL, Kamrej Sub- Division, which is produced at Exh. 11. The witness has produced the calculation sheet at Exh. 10, the FIR at Exh. 12, the notice of bill at Exh. 13, the statement of the accused at Exh. 14, the bill of theft of electricity at Exh. 15. During the cross examination, the witness has stated that there is a Register maintained about the checking conducted by the department and the Register also mentions the names of the persons who had gone for checking and their signatures is taken. As he has not Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined produced the register and no signatures were taken, he cannot say whether they had actually gone for checking or not. The entire procedure was done on the spot by Reddy Sahib and he cannot say what equipment was used to commit the theft of electricity. They did not mention at any place the length or the thickness of the wire and did not seize any document to show that the accused was in possession of the place where they had checked. 8.1 PW2 - Sandipbhai Balubhai Patel examined at Exh. 21 was working as a Junior Engineer, DGVCL and he had gone for checking on the day on 03.02.2006. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that at the time of the incident they had seized the wire. In the cross-examination the witness has admitted that he does not have any document to show that he had gone for checking and he does not know in whose ownership was the place where the theft of electricity was taking place. 8.2 PW3 - Jagdishbhai Jayantilal Bhatt examined at Exh. 28 is the PSO who has registered the complaint. In the cross-examination the witness has admitted that the Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined checking was conducted on 03.02.2006 and the complaint was filed on 23.02.2006 and there was a delay of 20 days in filing the complaint but there were no reasons mentioned for the delay in filing of the complaint. The witness has produced the extract of the Station Diary at Exh. 29. 8.3 PW4 - Nikulsinh Mahipatsinh Chudasama examined at Exh. 31 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. In the cross-examination the witness has admitted that no muddamal was seized by him and no panchnama of the place of offence was drawn during investigation. The statements of no independent witnesses were recorded and there is no evidence to show that he had visited the place of offence. Moreover, during investigation no document to show that the accused was the owner of the place where the theft of electricity has taken place was seized.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it appears that the complaint produced at Exh. 11 has been filed by Velgala Chinna Venkat Reddy who was working as the Deputy Engineer, DGVCL, Kamrej Rural Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined Sub-Division but he has not been examined as a witness before the learned Trial Court and hence the contents of the complaint have not been proved. Admittedly, the checking was done on 03.02.2006 and the complaint has been registered on 20.03.2006 and there is no explanation for the delay in filing of the complaint. PW1 - Kishor Kalidas Parmar and PW2 - Sandipbhai Balubhai Patel have both stated that they had gone for checking the electricity connections at Kamrej village but there is no evidence that they were authorized to go and in fact they had gone for checking the electricity connections and there is no documentary evidence to show that the accused was the owner or in occupation of the place where the theft of electricity has taken place. Both the witnesses have admitted that they did not seize any documentary evidence regarding the ownership or the possession of the house and no muddamal has been produced before the learned Trial Court. PW2 - Sandip Balubhai Patel has stated that they had seized the wire but no such wire has been produced before the learned Trial Court. The Investigating Officer Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined PW4 - Nikulsinh Mahipatsinh Chudasama examined has admitted that he has not drawn any panchnama of the place of offence and has not recorded the statements of any independent witnesses and hence, no independent witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial Court, even though as per the case of the prosecution, the checking of electricity was done in a residential area and there may be residences nearby but no such independent person has been examined before the Learned Trial Court. Moreover, there does not appear to be any permission taken by the complainant to file the complaint from any superior authority and there is no iota of evidence that the officers had checked the place and that the theft of electricity had in fact taken place.
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 Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 01:36:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025 undefined 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.
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge and 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Special Electricity Case No. 81/2008 on 29.05.2012, 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 01:36:23 IST 2025