Gujarat High Court
Banabhai Ramsangbhai Revar vs State Of Gujarat on 8 October, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1066 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
― √
==========================================================
BANABHAI RAMSANGBHAI REVAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SATYEN B RAWAL(1630) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 08/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Challenge is given to the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed on 7.8.2007 by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Surendranagar in Special Electricity Case no.48 of 2007, whereby the appellant - accused came to be convicted under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentenced for a period of one Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.90,000/-, in failure of payment of fine, further six months simple imprisonment. 1.1 Fine amount was ordered to be paid to PGVCL. The benefit of set off had been granted by the impugned judgment.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Satyen Rawal submitted that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is bad in law and is contrary to the evidence on record. The learned Trial Court Judge has wrongly placed burden on the accused ignoring the fact that reliable proof regarding the commission of offence has not been proved by the witnesses. Referring to the checking sheet and the Rojnama, Advocate Mr. Rawal submitted that actual place of offence which is agricultural land has not been proved. The checking sheet Exh.14 does not reflect the true facts, where on one hand, it has been stated that the people have run away from the place Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined with the alleged starter and fuse board, while on the other hand, it has been recorded that the appellant has denied to put his signature on the checking sheet. Advocate Mr. Rawal submitted that Exh.14 is without any signature of the Divisional Officer, nor any details with regard to bill and the entry number, date and place has been recorded, nor any further details could be noted. Advocate Mr. Rawal submitted that the allegation has been made that illegal electricity line was extended from the low pressure line above the land of Chandrikaben Jayantilal, while the documentary evidence in the form of Rojkam does not reflect the adjoining land of Chandrikaben Jayantilal. The Rojkam Exh.15 on the eastern direction shows Surendranagar - Rajkot highway road and on the western side, outskirts of Bhagavo-Khamisana Village. The deposition of the witnesses, more particularly, PW2 who states that he had visited the place does not corroborate the details Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined written in the checking list Exh.14, nor the Rojnama Exh.15 supports the testimony. 2.1 Advocate Mr. Rawal submitted that identity of the accused becomes questionable and further submitted that there has been delay of about two months in filing of the FIR and no reason has been assigned for such inordinate delay, where the provision under Section 135 of the Act mandates registration of the complaint within twenty four hours. Advocate Mr. Rawal submitted that contradictions in the evidence are very glaring, inspite of that, the learned Judge had passed judgment and order of conviction and sentence only on the presumption and assertion without any application of mind when evidence clearly shows that there is no corroboration of the ocular evidence to that of the documentary evidence, which the witnesses had proposed to prove. The observation of the learned Judge of non-cooperation of the accused is unsupported Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined observation, where unnecessary burden has been laid down on the accused to prove that he has not committed the theft of electricity. Advocate Mr. Rawal referring to the deposition of the witnesses as well as the documentary evidence more specifically Exhs.14 and 15 could submit that the trial has been wrongly proceeded against the accused and the evidence on record are vague and non-corroborative and do not inspire truth for the conviction to follow and thus, urged that the learned Trial Court has committed error in convicting the accused and made a prayer to set aside the conviction and sentence.
3. Per contra, Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP, having placed reliance on the checking list Exh.14 submitted that the accused is an agricultural non-customer and the fact is reflected in the document when checking was done on 19.12.2003 and on the place and prior to the Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined officers reaching the agricultural land, the persons working there on the filed had run away with the starter and fuse board, which were installed unauthorisedly and illegally for the theft of electricity. The accused had denied to sign the checking sheet and hence, such endorsement has been made on the document. The Inspecting Officer had seized the wire which was used for the theft. Ms. Bhatt has referred to the complainant along with the complaint Exh.12 and the deposition of PW2 - Inspector who had visited the place and submitted that the deposition of PW2 being an eye-witness to the cause is required to be believed and the learned Judge has on placing reliance on the evidence of the witnesses along with the documentary evidence which supports the testimony of PW2 as well as the complaint of PW1, has convicted the accused, which is just and proper and stated that the sentence is proportionate and hence, submitted to uphold the conviction. Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined
4. The complainant - PW1 - Bharatkumar Shrimali who was the Deputy Engineer at Surendranagar Rural Sub-Division of PGVCL (GEB) states of the incident of 19.12.2003 (19.12.2005 sic) the jurisdictional area under his control was Shekhpar Village and in the outskirts of Shekhpar Village, the complainant stated that the accused has his agricultural land, which is on the eastern side of the land of Chandrikaben Jayantibhai. The complainant stated that from the low pressure electric supply, tampering was done and 750 mtrs. long light blue, red and yellow colour wires were used for illegal connection and the accused had used submersible motor on the well of his agricultural land and the checking officer has noted the said fact in his checking sheet and the Rojnama. The complainant states that the accused were not found and therefore, they had refused to sign the checking sheet and the Rojkam. Advocate Mr. Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined Rawal submitted that the complainant refers to the accused in polarity and the deposition is recorded as if there were more than one accused who were on the place of offence refusing to sign the checking list and the Rojnama. The complainant stated that there was use of 5 HP motor and a theft of Rs.30,000/-. The complaint Exh.12 was given on 30.12.2005 under Section 135 of the Act. In the cross-examination, it has been recorded that the witness - complainant was not present on the day at the time of checking. The cross-examination suggests that earlier too, some electricity theft had come to his knowledge and the complainant states that he had taken certain steps. However, nothing has been brought on record on connecting this accused with that earlier complaint, nor any documentary evidence has been produced to prove the steps taken by the complainant witness and hence, there is no corroboration of his evidence of earlier theft on record. The complainant also in the cross- Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined examination stated that earlier before this case too, he had filed case of electricity theft and affirmed that he has not produced any document. It is strange to note that the officer who is authorized to file a complaint under Section 135 of the Act is not aware of the provisions of Section 135 of the Act since the provision makes specific penal action to be followed in case of first, second or subsequent acts and if earlier illegal act of the accused proved, then stringent penal provisions follow in case of conviction. The non-production of the earlier documents as alleged and stated by the complainant in the cross-examination would rather prove fatal for the prosecution case, where the complainant as a responsible officer of GEB had not thought it fit to even produce the documents, which he states to have been in his knowledge and states that it was filed by him. The complaint Exh.12 appears to have been written on 20.12.2003. The complaint specifies Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined that the agricultural land of the accused is on the eastern side of the field of Chandrikaben Manilal and the illegal connection was from the connection of Chandrikaben's field. The complainant states that from the low pressure electricity pole, the wire was extended to the land of the ownership of the accused. The wire was light blue, black and yellow of 750 mtrs. length and illegal and unauthorized use was done on the well, which was in the field of the accused. The installation was alleged to be of 5 HP motor. The complainant states that no connection was given from the GEB on the agricultural land of the accused, inspite of that, as alleged, the unauthorized electricity usage was found on the place and because of tampering in the electricity supply on the low pressure line of the GEB, the complainant found to be a criminal offence and therefore, had given complaint at Exh.12. The Investigating Officer - PW4 - Hussainbhai Isakbhai Dal has Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined stated that the complaint was registered by PW3
- Mohammadrafik Reshamohammad Solanki as the PSO in the GEB Police Station, Bhavnagar and the investigation was handed over to him. The registration of the complaint was on 22.2.2003. The witness, as Investigating Officer, had recorded the statements on 27.2.2004 and had arrested the accused on 18.5.2005. The Investigating Officer stated that he has not visited the place of raid and has affirmed that there are many agricultural lands surrounding the alleged place of offence. The Investigating Officer's testimony records that he has not collected any supporting material to verify the fact whether electricity connection was in force at the time of raid and that he had not seized any Muddamal.
5. The vital evidence as could be considered would be of PW2 - Dhimant Bhikhabhai Parmar who states that he had gone along with M.B. Patel on Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined 19.12.2004 under the instructions of the superior officer. He was working as a Junior Engineer along with other staff members, however, he could not name them.
6. The deposition of PW2 records that they had electricity checking of the field of Banabhai Ramsangbhai and according to the witnesses, there was no legal electricity connection from the GEB and it is alleged that from the low pressure line near the field of Chandrikaben Manilal, which was on the eastern side of the agricultural land of the accused, 750 mtr. long line was joined, illegal connection was given of 5 HP motor, which was installed on the well and that motor was found to be in use. The witnesses in the deposition stated that since the accused Banabhai Ramsangbhai was present there, the wire was seized and checking sheet was prepared.
7. The testimony in examination-in-chief, thus, suggests that the accused was present over there Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined and at that time, they had found the motor installed on the well, which was of 5 HP. The illegal connection was recorded of 750 mtr. long wire line. The fact which has been recorded in Exh.14 has not been deposed by PW2 of the people running away from the field with the starter and fuse board. The checking sheet Exh.14 has been produced on record, where the witness stated that the accused failed to put his signature on the checking sheet as he refused to do so. He does not remember whether any other persons were present there apart from the accused Banabhai. This statement of the witness PW2 does not find corroboration from the facts noted in Exh.14, the checking list. The witness though was a Checking Inspector has not stated that prior to their reaching the place, the people working on the field of Banabhai had taken away starter and fuse board. The wire noted to have been seized in Exh.14 and even stated in the deposition of being seized has not been made part of Muddamal Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined during the trial, though the witness states that the checking sheet Rojkam and the seized wires were given to the complainant, it has not been made the part of the trial. The deposition of PW2 also records the use of 5 HP motor on the well. Such motor has not been seized by the witnesses to prove unauthorized use of electricity. The relevant fact which becomes noticeable is that when the accused had denied to put the signature on the checking sheet to prove the place of offence, the witness PW2 could have recorded the statement of Chandrikaben or instead, could have taken the signature of Chandrikaben on the checking list Exh.14 to prove their inspection on 19.12.2003 on the place alleged to be agricultural land of the accused. The witness has affirmed that he has not taken any documents to show the ownership of the accused to the field. Nothing has been recorded of the number assigned to the electric pole, which has been alleged to be used Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined for illegal tapping of the electricity. PW2 has admitted that when they had gone for the checking, it was an agricultural area and there were many fields and farms and even many people were working in the field. The witness admitted that he has not seized the motor and has also affirmed that the wires, which has been shown to have been seized, are easily available in the market.
8. Section 135 of the Act carries stringent provisions for penalty. It mandates the complaint to be compulsorily filed within twenty four hours of such disconnection and during the search, seizure has to specifically remove all the devices, instruments, wires and any other facilitator or article which are found to be used for unauthorized use of electricity. The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf has to remain present at the time of search and a list of all things seized in the Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined course of such search shall be prepared and delivered to such occupant or person who shall sign the list. Here in this case, no such exercise has been done while it has been recorded that the accused had refused to sign the checking list. The seizure list appears to have not been drawn by the witnesses. Any attempt to get the signature on such seized list has not been proved. The burden would shift on the accused only after such dishonest use, obstruction or consumption of the electricity is proved by the officers of the licenses or the supplier authorized on behalf of the State Government who have the authority to enter, inspect, break upon and search any place of premises in which the officer has the reason to believe that the electricity has been or is being used unauthorisedly and for that purpose, the ownership of the property and the occupant of the property in possession is also required to be proved, to establish the direct connection Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined of the accused to those premises, which are stated to be inspected, searched for the allegation of dishonest tapping or tampering of the meters or unauthorized installation of any apparatus, equipments or wires. Here in the present case, the prosecution witnesses failed to prove the instruments and apparatus used for the alleged illegal unauthorised use of electricity to be considered as theft of electricity, though raid was conducted. The raid conducted on 19.12.2003 could not be proved by bringing any registers recording the visit on that alleged date, nor any written order authorizing raid on 19.12.2003 has been proved, which was precisely as per the deposition of PW2, directed to the agricultural field of the accused.
9. The learned Trial Court Judge has wrongly placed burden on the accused to prove that there was no abstraction, consumption or use of the Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025 undefined electricity, dishonestly caused by him. Prima facie, the evidence has not been led to presume such illegal act of the accused.
10. In the analysis of the evidence made hereinabove with the observations, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court Judge has committed an error in reaching to the conclusion to convict the accused.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 7.8.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Surendranagar in Special Electricity Case no.48 of 2007 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Bail bond discharged. Registry is directed to send back the record and proceedings to the concerned Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J) Maulik Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by MAULIK R. PANDYA(HC00205) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 02:52:04 IST 2025