Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Farook Rasulbhai Shaikh on 22 September, 2025
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/296/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 296 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
FAROOK RASULBHAI SHAIKH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. BHARGAV PANDYA, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MA KHARADI(1032) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 22/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] This Appeal is filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity) & 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Panchmahal at Godhra dated 11.11.2009 in Sessions Case No.33 of 2006 (Electricity), whereby respondent - accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 135(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for short 'the Act, 2003').
Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:09:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/296/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined [2] Brief facts of the case are here as under:
[2.1] As per the case of the complainant, Krushnabhai Ramjibhai, Dy. Engineer, Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited (for short 'MGVCL'), Godhra, Rural Sub Division Godhra, registered a complaint on 22.04.2006 at 'MGVCL' Police Station, Vadodara, and when premises of the respondent - accused was inspected on 10.04.2006 at Village- Gadh (Chanchelav) along with other Officers of the Company, it was found that respondent
- accused though not consumer of the company, he made direct electricity connection with low tension electricity line passing just behind the house of the accused, through red-colored wires of 1/18 gauge phase wire and neutral wire, and consumed 1.911 kilowatt electricity directly, for which, a bill of Rs.1,51,910.40 came to be issued to the respondent - accused. However, accused has not paid the said amount. Thus, it is alleged that despite respondent-- accused is non-consumer, he committed theft of electricity, as aforesaid.
[2.2] On such complaint being registered, Head Constable
- Rohit Chimanbhai Pandya, took over the investigation. He recorded the statement of witnesses and since there was sufficient evidence against the accused, he filed charge-sheet in Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:09:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/296/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godhra. Since case was exclusively triable by the Special Judge, it was committed to the Court of Sessions.
[2.3] On ensuring compliance of the provisions of 'the Code' with regard to copies of papers of charge-sheet and other things, learned Special Judge framed the charge against the accused for an offence under Section 135(1)(a) of 'the Act, 2003'. Since the accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried, prosecution examined 4 witnesses and produced and proved nearly 6 documents to prove the guilt of the accused. [2.4] On conclusion of the evidence and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution as also the accused, the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal has come to be passed by the learned Special Judge, against which, the present appeal is preferred.
[3] Heard Mr. Bhargav Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State. He took me to the impugned judgment and order of acquittal as also the evidence led before the Court and documents produced in minute detail. He submitted that prosecution has examined witnesses, produced Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:09:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/296/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined and proved the documents, which are corroborated by the witnesses. Since the accused caught red handed committing theft of electricity through connecting with overhead low tension electric line through red-colored wires and he found that at the place of offence, a checking-sheet came to be prepared which is signed by him. Since prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused has committed theft of electricity, which is punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of 'the Act, 2003', this appeal be allowed and accused be convicted for the offence charged. [4] As against that, Mr. M.A.Kharadi, learned advocate for the respondent - accused vehemently submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. From the evidence led before the Court, according to submission of Mr. Kharadi, learned advocate, it has not been proved that accused was present and he signed the checking-sheet, as claimed by the prosecution witnesses, beyond reasonable doubt. He has further submitted that though independent witnesses are available, no statement of any of them is recorded or examined before the Court. He has further submitted that even after registration of an offence, Police has completed the rituals, taking statements of only officers, who were members of the raiding party, and virtually, there was no investigation at all into the crime against Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:09:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/296/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined the accused. He has further submitted that since copy of checking-sheet where prosecution witnesses claimed that it has signature of the accused is not proved before the Court, as it was a xerox copy which was exhibited subject to production of original. Though, it is claimed by the witnesses that original is produced in the Suit filed against the accused, the witnesses have not bothered to produce certified copy thereof before the Court, so as to show to the Court whether accused has signed the checking-sheet or not?
[4.1] He has further submitted, drawing attention of the Court to the copy of plaint filed against the accused, as claimed in the suit, that neither the accused nor his representative signed the checking-sheet, whereas as claimed by the witnesses in the present case, checking-sheet was signed by the accused. As such, since it is not proved on record of this case, no cognizance of such evidence be taken against the accused. He has further submitted that no rojkam or panchnama prepared by the inspecting Officer on the date of inspection, as admitted by them in the cross examination.
[4.2] He has further submitted that no independent panch witnesses have come to be associated even to prepare a Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:09:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/296/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined panchnama or list of documents seized or muddamal seized. Therefore, he has submitted that since the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused, learned Judge should have recorded an order of clean acquittal and instead, he has given benefit of doubt. Therefore, he has submitted that this Court may not interfere, while exercising appellate powers, that too, in this acquittal appeal. He has submitted that even if two views are possible on the basis of evidence adduced before the Court, the view which is favourable to the accused is to be accepted. When there is no view than the view taken by the learned Judge is possible, this Court may not interfere in this acquittal appeal and may dismiss the same. [5] Having heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as also the learned advocate for the respondent - accused and going through the judgment and order of acquittal as also the evidence led before the Court and documents produced and proved, let me examine, on re-appreciation of evidence, whether impugned judgment and order of acquittal is bereft of any evidence on record or not?
[6] Complainant- Krushnabhai Ramjibhai Desai, who is examined at Exhibit-6, claimed that he was working as Dy. Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:09:17 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/296/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined Executive Engineer with 'MGVCL', Godhra Rural and on 10.04.2006, he along with H.S.Dave, N.C.Solanki and Ghadiyali had gone for electricity inspection at Village- Gadh, Chudadi and Ladpur. Other linemen were also there along with them. At about 10:00 p.m. on that day, they inspected the premises of respondent - accused, Farook Rasulbhai Shaikh and they found that from the low tension line passing just behind the house of the accused, he made direct connection through two red-colored wires, 1/18 gauge wire of 5 meters and committed theft of electricity. They found total 1.911 kilowatt load consumed at that time in the premises. Therefore, a bill of Rs.1,51,910.40 came to be issued. From the place, wire was seized. Since the accused was present, at that place checking-sheet was prepared in original, which is produced in the Suit filed against the accused. He claimed that it contained his and other Officers' signature as also Staff. He has asserted that signature of accused was also taken in the checking-sheet. Next day in the office, calculation sheet was prepared and a bill has come to be issued to the accused. During his evidence, he produced calculation sheet at Exhibit-8 and supplementary bill at Exhibit-
9. Therefore, a complaint Exhibit-10 came to be given by him to the Police Station. He further claimed that till today, accused Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:09:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/296/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined has not paid this amount of supplementary bill. He identified the muddamal and the accused before the Court. As such, he claimed that father of the accused is their consumer. According to his evidence, father of accused was found to have committed theft of electricity thrice earlier and he also did not pay any amount of supplementary bill.
[7] However, he has specifically admitted in his cross examination that muddamal which is seized, he did not prepare any list and copy was also not served to the accused. He has further admitted that in checking-sheet, no signature of any neighbour is taken. For the very same premises, 'MGVCL' has filed a case against Rasoolbhai Sattarbhai, who is father of the accused. He has admitted that such muddamal wire is available in the market, whether the muddamal wire is live or not, no test report is obtained. He has further admitted in the cross examination that muddamal is neither seized in presence of panch witnesses, nor even panchnama is drawn. Complaint has come to be sent through post. As such, he denied that signature of the accused in the checking-sheet is created by them. He has admitted in his cross examination that for ownership of the premises, documentary evidences are available with the Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:09:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/296/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined Government Offices. He has further admitted that before preparing checking-sheet, house number / property number is not attempted to be even obtained. He has admitted in his evidence that in the surrounding of the premises, there are other residential premises as well. He has further admitted that in their presence, Police had not carried out any panchnama of the place of incident. He has further admitted that at the time of complaint, Police seized the muddamal but no panchnama is prepared.
[8] On analyzing such evidence, learned Judge has said that on the date of checking, whether the premises belongs to the accused, no documentary evidence is ever produced, no such things have been mentioned in the checking-sheet. While copy of checking-sheet was produced, it was specifically noted by the Court that since it contained signature of responsible Officer, on condition of producing original, checking-sheet mark 5/3 was given Exhibit-7. Though it was exhibited on condition of producing the original, no such original or even true copy was attempted to be produced by any of the witnesses. As claimed by the witness, checking-sheet was also signed by the accused. However, copy of plaint produced by the accused along with his Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:09:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/296/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined written submissions of Regular Civil Suit No.452 of 2007, in paragraph 3 thereof, it is specifically mentioned that checking Officers prepared a detailed report of inspection in presence of accused / representative of the accused and such report was prepared in prescribed form, which did not contain signature of either the accused or his representative as they did not sign it. It is further mentioned therein that on the basis of such a report, electricity company is entitled to recover amount of supplementary bill pursuant to the electricity theft. Thus, it is clear that the said report prepared by the Officer concerned is in respect of checking-sheet. Therefore, there appears contradictory evidence led before the Court. Therefore, perhaps prosecution has not produced the original of checking-sheet Exhibit-7. Since Exhibit-7 was exhibited on condition of production of original, which was never produced, it has to be eschewed from the evidence. If checking-sheet prepared by the Officer concerned, who inspected the premises, is taken out of evidence, there remains nothing on record, whereby it can be said that on that day premises was checked and it is found as claimed by the prosecution witnesses.
[9] Not only that, if original checking-sheet is produced Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:09:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/296/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined in the Suit, they could have obtained certified copy thereof from the Civil Court and produced before the Special Court to lend assurance to the evidence of prosecution witnesses that checking-sheet was also signed by the accused. As such, averments in the Suit reflects that neither the accused nor his representative have ever signed checking-sheet or any report prepared by them.
[9.1] No rojkam or panchnama prepared on the date of inspection and if prepared, it is not produced on record before the Court, which creates doubt about the genuineness of the assertion made by the prosecution witness. Though late filing of the complaint may not assume that much importance, in view of the fact that there appears contradictory version about the signature of the accused in the checking-sheet / report prepared by the Officer concerned, even late filing of the complaint assumes importance, more particularly, when neither the original nor true copy of checking-sheet is produced by the prosecution. At the same time, nothing is mentioned about checking-sheet in the written complaint Exhibit-10, sent to the Police Station by the complainant, however, copy of the checking-sheet is claimed to have been annexed with that Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:09:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/296/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined complaint. Therefore, nothing is mentioned about the same in the complaint, is of no use. But, at the same time, that checking- sheet has to be produced and proved before the Court. Since calculation sheet at Exhibit-10 and bill at Exhibit-9, though xerox copy, looses its significance, in absence of checking-sheet being produced and proved.
[10] Prosecution has examined another witness viz. Himmatbhai Hargovindbhai Dave at Exhibit-18. He has also given corroborative evidence to that of the complainant. He has also asserted that checking-sheet was prepared and signature of the respondent-accused was taken in that checking-sheet as also signed by the checking Officers as well. Cross examination of this very witness is also in line of the cross examination of the complainant, bringing out whatever is already brought out in the cross examination of the complainant. Therefore, nothing further is required to be referred to in this judgment about the evidence of this witness.
[11] Third witness examined is Manish Yashwant Ghadiyali, who is also a part of checking Officers, examined at Exhibit-20, and he has also given corroborative evidence to that of the complainant. Lastly, Investigating Officer - Rohitkumar Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:09:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/296/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined Chimanlal Pandya is examined at Exhibit-21. He claimed that on investigation being entrusted to him on registration of FIR, he recorded the statement of the witnesses. Since statements of the witnesses are supporting the complaint and there is sufficient evidence against the accused, he filed charge-sheet against him. Muddamal, while complaint was given, produced before the Police and, therefore, when PSO has given him yadi, which was produced at Exhibit-22. He has admitted that, in this case, no panchnama of place of incident is drawn by him. He has also not verified whether the muddamal, which is mentioned in the checking-sheet, is actually used in the commission of an offence or not? He has also not verified the supplementary bill given to the accused. As such, on registration of FIR, Investigating Officer is supposed to visit the place of incident and record statements of surrounding witnesses available, no such action is taken by the Investigating Officer. He has only recorded the statement of the Officer concerned of the raiding party. [12] Considering the overall evidence led before the Court and on re-appreciation thereof, it appears that since no checking-sheet is proved before the Court containing signature of the respondent- accused, prosecution has miserably failed to Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:09:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/296/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined prove the case against the accused along with other evidence on record. As such, evidence of official witnesses need not be discarded, if it is corroborated by other independent witnesses. However, in the present case, not only statements of independent witnesses were not recorded, even they are not examined before the Court, to lend assurance to the claim made by the prosecution witnesses. Though xerox copy of checking- sheet is admitted in the evidence at Exhibit-7, subject to production of original, the prosecution and, more particularly, the witnesses have miserably failed to produce the same. Even if, it is produced in the Suit filed by them against the accused, they could have obtained the certified copy from the Court concerned and produced the same before the Special Court. Neither of it has taken place and, therefore, checking-sheet remained to be not proved on record, lending assurance that on the date of incident, any checking / inspection was made by them, as claimed. Even otherwise, as required under Section 135(3) of 'the Act, 2003', a list of all things seized in the course of search carried out shall be prepared and delivered to the occupant or a person who shall sign the list. However, no such list is prepared of the things seized, as admitted by witnesses and no such copy was ever given to the accused. Therefore, there is infraction of Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:09:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/296/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined sub-section (3) of Section 135 of 'the Act, 2003'. Though, it may not be determined whether it is mandatory or not, fact remains that checking-sheet is not produced and proved on record. At the same time, as admitted, no such list of things seized from the place like wire etc., to which theft of electricity is committed, inspiring no confidence from the evidence led before the Court. [13] Though the provisions of 'the Code' relating to search and seizure, as far as may be, shall apply to searches and seizures under 'the Act, 2003', no independent witnesses of the locality were associated for carrying out search or seizure lending assurance to the search and seizure made by the prosecution witnesses. Coupled with the fact that in two different proceedings filed by the very institution, different claim is made in respect of signature of the accused over the report / checking-sheet, and therefore, non-production of original or even certified copy of checking-sheet subject to which it is given Exhibit-7, assumes importance. If it is produced, they would have been exposed, though Suit filed by the Dy. Executive Engineer of 'MGVCL' Rural Sub Division Godhra contains assertion that the report / checking-sheet prepared at the place, accused / his representative did not sign the same. Whereas, Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:09:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/296/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined very Dy. Executive Engineer claimed before the Criminal Court claims that checking-sheet was signed by the accused. Though the complainant in his deposition stated that load of 1.911 kilowatt was being consumed at the time of inspection, what were the electric apparatus used at the time of inspection is not even noted in any report or even stated before the Court so as to issue supplementary bill of Rs.1,51,910.40. [14] At the same time, though independent witnesses were available in the surrounding area, neither they were associated with the search or seizure, their statements were also not recorded and if recorded, they have not been produced before the Court and they have not been examined before the Court to lend assurance / corroboration to the deposition of the Officers concerned, which is under a cloud.
[15] Therefore, it is clear that on correct appreciation of the evidence led before the Court and I find it to be correct one on re-appreciation of evidence, when benefit of doubt is given to the accused, it requires no interference in this appellate jurisdiction where innocence of the accused is even strengthen by the order of acquittal recorded in his favour. In any view of the matter, when two views on the evidence is available, the view Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:09:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/296/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/09/2025 undefined which is in favour of the accused has to be accepted, there appears no other view possible than the view taken by the learned Judge on the evidence adduced, I see no reason to interfere in this appeal.
[16] In view thereof, this appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court immediately.
Sd/-
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J) Lalji Desai Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by LALJI AMRUTBHAI DESAI(HC01558) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:09:17 IST 2025