Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kanjibhai Bhurabhai Kateshiya Satvara on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/176/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 176 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KANJIBHAI BHURABHAI KATESHIYA SATVARA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 08/08/2025
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
and Special Judge and 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial
Court") in Special (GEB) Case No. 297/2014 on 29.09.2015,
whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the
respondent for the offence punishable under Section 135 of
The Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/176/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as "the
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 10.01.2006, D. K. Jethwa - Junior Engineer,
Industrial Sub-Division PGVCL, Jamnagar, M. J. Parmar -
Helper, Industrial Sub-Division PGVCL, Jamnagar and M.
H. Pancholi - Helper, Industrial Sub-Division PGVCL,
Jamnagar had checked the house of the accused at
Khamirana village and they found that the accused had
fixed a yellow colour service wire to the low tension
electricity line on the pole and with a black colour cable had
joined the submersible motor and was using electricity for
his house and the field. After the due procedure, it was
found that the accused had committed theft of electricity of
Rs. 73,958.75/- and the complainant - Harjibhai
Shamjibhai Dudhagara - Deputy Engineer, PGVCL Rural
Sub-Division Jamnagar filed the complaint under Section
135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 at the PGVCL Rajkot
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/176/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
Zone Police Station which came to be registered as PGVCL
Police Station, Rajkot Zone, II - C.R. No. 393 of 2006.
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 Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Jamnagar 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. 297/2014.
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. 3 was framed against the
accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exh. 4, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/176/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 3 witnesses and produced 9
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
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 them.
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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/176/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
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
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, none has appeared on behalf of the
respondent to make any submissions. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/176/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
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. 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.
7. In light of the above settled principles of law, as the
case of the prosecution is that the accused had committed
a theft of electricity, the prosecution has to prove that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/176/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
accused, though was a non-consumer, was committing the
theft of electricity. PW1 - Harjibhai Shamjibhai Dudhagara
examined at Exh. 8 is the complainant who was working as
a Deputy Engineer in the PGVCL Industrial Sub-Division
Jamnagar. The witness has stated that his officers had
gone for checking and he had filed the complaint which is
produced at Exh. 9, Annexure 11 - calculation sheet at
Exh. 10, the bill of theft at Exh. 11 and the notice sent to
the accused at Exh. 12. During the cross examination, the
witness has stated that in the complaint produced at Exh.
9, the name of the accused is mentioned as Kateshia
Kanjibhai Vasantlal and the bill at Exh. 11 and the notice
at Exh. 12 are sent to Kateshia Kanjibhai Vasantlal. The
witness has admitted that he has not gone to the place for
checking and he had not taken the permission of any
superior authority before filing of the complaint. No
panchnama regarding the muddamaal seized at the place of
theft was drawn and there is no reason mentioned in the
complaint for the delay in filing of the complaint.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/176/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
7.1 PW2 - Dilipbhai Kherajbhai Jethva examined at Exh.
14 was the Officer who had gone for checking at the place
of the accused and he has narrated the facts as stated in
the complaint. The witness has stated that he along with
helper - M.J. Parmar and helper - M.H Pancholi had gone
for checking and has produced the checking sheet at Exh.
15 and the rojkaam at Exh. 16. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that the Vigilance Department is in their
office and it is their duty to check theft of electricity but he
was not a member of the Vigilance Department. He has not
taken any photographs at the place of the theft and has not
taken any documentary evidence about the ownership of
the place where the checking had taken place. The yellow
and black wires were seized but no panchnama was drawn
and in the checking sheet produced at Exh. 15, a different
name has been mentioned. No documentary evidence to
show that they had gone for checking has been produced
on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/176/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
7.2 PW3 - Jitendrasinh Bhavubha Zala examined at Exh.
19 is the PSO who had registered the complaint and has
produced a copy of an extract of the Station Diary at Exh.
21 and the FIR at Exh. 20. The witness has stated that the
Investigating Officer - Prabhatbhai Kamabhai Miyatra has
expired and the death certificate is produced on record at
Exh. 18. During the cross-examination, the witness has
stated that the complaint was filed against Kanjibhai
Vasantbhai Kateshia but the charge sheet has been filed
against Kanjibhai Bhurabhai Kateshia
8. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, it is on record that PW2 - Dilipbhai Kherajbhai
Jethva and two helpers - A. M. Parmar and M. H. Pancholi
had gone for checking on 10.01.2006 at Khamirana village
but the complaint is filed on 08.05.2006 and there is no
explanation for the delay in filing of the complaint which is
produced at Exh. 9. Admittedly, the complainant was not
an eyewitness to the checking of the theft of electricity at
Khamirana village and the only witness who had gone for
checking is PW2 - Dilipbhai Kherajbhai Jethva but he has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/176/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
stated that no panchnama of the muddamaal wires was
drawn and no muddamaal has been produced before the
learned Trial Court. Except for the deposition of PW2 -
Dilipbhai Kherajbhai Jethva, there is no evidence that the
place of the accused was ever checked or that the accused
was the owner or occupier of the place where the checking
had taken place. Moreover, the complaint has been filed
against Kanjibhai Vasantbhai Kateshia but the charge
sheet has been filed against Kanjibhai Bhurabhai Kateshia
and there is no explanation on record regarding the
contradiction in the name of the accused. There are no
independent witnesses examined by the prosecution and
there is no documentary evidence to show in whose
ownership or possession was the property where the
checking had taken place. No photographs or videography
has been undertaken at the time of the checking and from
the documents there is no evidence that the accused
Kanjibhai Bhurabhai Kateshia has committed any theft of
electricity and all these aspects have been discussed by the
learned Trial Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/176/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
9. 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.
10. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned and Special Judge and 3 rd Additional
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/176/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Special (GEB) Case No.
297/2014 on 29.09.2015, is hereby confirmed.
11. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd-
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
