Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Thakkar Pravinbhai Ramjibhai on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 1114 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
THAKKAR PRAVINBHAI RAMJIBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.D K.PUJ(3836) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RUCHIR A PATEL(7954) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 12/08/2025
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
Special Judge, Patan (hereinafter referred to as "the learned
Trial Court") in Special (Electricity) Case No. 4/2016 on
15.06.2017, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted
the respondent for the offence punishable under Section
135(1)(b) of The Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as "the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
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 The accused was residing at village Chalwada, Taluka,
Radhanpur, District Patan and the house had an electricity
connection in the name of Ramjibhai Chandubhai Thakkar -
the father of the accused. On 26.04.2013, the officers of
Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited (UGVCL),
Surendranagar Division, Deputy Engineer - Bhupendrasinh
Govindsinh Zala and other staff members had undertaken a
surprise checking at the residence of the accused and found
that electricity was being consumed but it was not recorded
in the meter and after the due procedure, it was found that
the accused had committed a theft of electricity of Rs.
1,67,587.82/-. The complainant - Nareshbhai Hargovanbhai
Patel - Deputy Engineer, UGVCL, Radhanpur Sub Division
filed the complaint at the Sabarmati GUVNL Police Station
under Section 135(1)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003,
which came to be registered as Sabarmati GUVNL Police
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
Station I - C.R. No. 1137/2012.
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
First Class, Radhanpur and as the said offences against the
accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,
the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Patan as per
the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure
and the case was registered as Special (Electricity) Case No.
4/2016.
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. 10 was framed against the
accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exh. 11, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken
on record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
2.4 The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced
12 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
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 Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the
appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Himanshu
Thakkar for learned advocate Mr. D.K. Puj. 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 Mr. Pranav Dhagat 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
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
accused, though was a non-consumer, was committing the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
theft of electricity. PW1 - Patel Nareshbhai Hargovanbhai
examined at Exh. 16 is the complainant who has narrated
the facts as stated by him in the complaint produced at
Exh. 17. The witness has stated that the accused had
himself tampered with the body seal of the meter and had
opened the meter and arranged the numbers himself and
the consumption of the meter of the accused was showing a
fixed consumption of 200 units per month for the past one
year. The checking team had seized the service cable and
meter, and had deposited the same in their office. The
electricity connection was given to Ramjibhai
Phoolchandbhai Thakkar but it was being used by the
accused and the witness has produced the complaint at
Exh. 17, the notice sent to the accused at Exh. 18, the bill
of theft of electricity of Rs. 1,67,587.82/- at Exh. 19, the
Annexure C at Exh. 20. During the cross examination, the
witness has admitted that the complaint was filed about
one month after the checking was done and was not filed
immediately after the incident and no explanation for the
delay in filing of the complaint has been given in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
complaint. The witness has admitted that he was not
present along with the raiding party at the time of the raid
and he does not know what procedure was undertaken at
the time of the raid and the situation of the meter while it
was seized. The witness has no personal knowledge about
how the signatures were taken on the documents and the
complaint at Exh. 17 was sent to the GUVNL, Sabarmati
Police Station along with an employee and the complaint
filed at Exh. 17 bears the handwriting of his clerk. The
complaint was prepared on the basis of the documents
submitted by the raiding party and he did not inquire in
whose name was the electricity connection and whether the
person in whose name the electricity connection was given
was alive or not. The witness has admitted that theft of
electricity and illegal usage of electricity were two separate
things and the bill that was being given to the consumer
was being paid regularly. The complaint was filed only on
the basis of the information given by the members of the
raiding party and the bill of theft of electricity was given as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
per the ABCD formula and not as per the actual
consumption.
7.1 PW2 - Thakor Jevatbhai Savdanbhai examined at Exh.
21 and PW3 - Chaudhary Nareshbhai Bhemabhai
examined at Exh. 23 are the panch witnesses of the
panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at
Exh. 22. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of
the prosecution and have been declared hostile.
7.2 PW4 - Zala Bhupatsinh Govindbhai examined at Exh.
25 was a member of the checking team and has supported
the case of the prosecution. The witness has produced the
checking sheet at Exh. 26 and the Annexure 4 at Exh. 27.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for
the accused, the witness has stated that at the time of the
incident, his headquarter was Surendranagar and on
26.04.2012, he had instructions to go to Radhanpur for
checking but the instructions were orally given and he did
not produce any documentary evidence to show that he was
instructed to go for checking to Radhanpur. He does not
know in which direction is Chalwada village from
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
Radhanpur and when they went to Chalwada they had gone
first to the house of the accused. He was the senior member
at the time of the raid and he was informed by the persons
who were with him that the theft of electricity was taking
place. They did not pass any resolution about the theft of
electricity on the spot and he did not ask the consumer
about the old bills and did not verify whether the older bills
were paid or not. No statements of any neighbours were
recorded at the time of the incident.
7.3 PW5 - Solanki Dhanjibhai Muljibhai examined at Exh.
28 was working in the UGVCL and he was a member of the
checking team on the date of the incident. The witness has
fully supported the case of the prosecution and during the
cross-examination, he has stated that as a technician, he
has to verify the electricity connections and no separate
meter is placed besides the meter to check whether the
meter is running slowly. The superior officer decides
whether the theft of electricity has taken place or not and in
his presence, no previous bills were verified by his superior
officer. There was no written instructions to go for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
electricity checking and as an employee, it is his duty to
obey the instructions of his superior officer.
7.4 PW6 - Padhiyar Bankumbhai Naranbhai examined at
Exh. 29 was also a member of the checking team that had
gone to Chalwada village of Radhanpur taluka on the date
of the incident and has fully supported the case of the
prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused the witness has stated that as a
helper, it is his duty to obey the instructions of his superior
officers and the superior officer would decide whether theft
of electricity has taken place or not. There was no written
instruction given to him go for checking.
7.5 PW7 - Thakkar Shantaben Ramjibhai examined at
Exh. 30 is the mother of the accused and she has stated
that her husband Ramjibhai Phoolchandbhai Thakkar
expired on 26.12.2001 and she has five sons Vinod,
Praveen, Dinesh, Ganpat and Suresh. She has a house at
Chalwada village and the electricity connection was taken
in the name of her husband - Ramjibhai Phoolchandbhai.
In the year 2012, the officers of the electricity company had
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
come for checking and she had told them that she was
paying the electricity bills regularly but they had taken the
meter stating that the meter had to be changed. That her
sons were not present at the time of the incident. The
witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and
has been declared hostile and cross-examined at length by
the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the
prosecution has come on record. During cross-examination
by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has
stated that she is residing in the house and her son
Praveen was residing at Radhanpur. That after the officers
of the electricity company had taken the meter, they had
told her to send her son to Radhanpur to affix his signature
on the documents.
7.6 PW8 - Raval Bhikhabhai Maghabhai examined at Exh.
31 is the PSO at GUVNL Police Station, Sabarmati who has
registered the complaint and has produced the depute
order at Exh. 32. During the cross-examination, the
witness has stated that the complaint was filed two months
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
after the incident and along with the complaint, no
muddadmaal was sent by the complainant.
7.7 PW9 - Belim Rehmankhan Namadkhan examined at
Exh. 34 is the Investigating Officer who has partly
investigated the offence and has drawn the panchnama at
Exh. 22 and had thereafter handed over the investigation to
ASI - K.G. Sadhu.
7.8 PW10 - Sadhu Kiritkumar Govindlal examined at Exh.
35 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail
the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. The
witness has produced the death certificate of Ramjibhai
Phoolchandbhai Thakkar at Exh. 36 and the election card
of the accused at Exh. 37. The witness has also produced a
consumption list of the electricity consumed by consumer
no. 72187000354 - Ramjibhai Phoolchandbhai Thakkar
from January 2008 to March 2012 at Exh. 38 and a letter
sent to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Radhanpur at Exh. 39.
8. On minute perusal of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, it is on record that the surprise checking was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
conducted by the Officers of the UGVCL on 26.04.2012 and
the complaint has been filed on 29.05.2012. The
panchnama of the place of offence produced at Exh. 22 has
been drawn on 12.06.2012. The complainant PW1 -
Nareshbhai Hargovanbhai Patel was not the member of the
checking team and has no personal knowledge about the
incident and has not explained the delay of more than one
month in filing of the complaint. Moreover, as per the case
of the prosecution, the meter and the wire were seized but
they have not been brought before the learned Trial Court
and PW4 - Bhupatsinh Govindsinh Zala examined at Exh.
25 has stated that the service cable and the electricity
meter were seized and they were deposited at the office at
Radhanpur but the muddamaal was not seized by the
Investigating Officer during investigation. There is no
panchnama regarding the seizure of the meter and wire
drawn at the place of incident and the complainant has
prepared the complaint which is produced at Exh. 17 on
the basis of the documents given by the checking team.
Moreover, there is no iota of evidence regarding the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
ownership or possession of the property where the checking
had taken place and that the same was in possession of the
accused. In fact, PW7 - Shantaben Ramjibhai Thakkar has
stated that she was residing in the house and the accused
was residing at Radhanpur and the officers of the electricity
company had come and taken the meter stating that the
same had to be changed and to send her son to the
Radhanpur office. There is no iota of evidence that the
accused himself was residing in the house as PW7 has
stated that she has five sons - Vinod, Praveen, Dinesh,
Ganpat and Suresh and the electricity connection was in
the name of her deceased husband - Ramjibhai
Phoolchandbhai Thakkar. Besides the handwritten
complaint produced at Exh. 17, no FIR has been produced
by the prosecution on record and the complainant has
admitted that the complaint at Exh. 17 bear the
handwriting of his clerk. Moreover, the place where the
surprise checking was undertaken was a residential house
and there may be others residing near the place where the
checking had taken place but no independent witnesses
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
have been examined by the prosecution before the learned
Trial Court.
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1114/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
10. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Special Judge, Patan (hereinafter
referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special
(Electricity) Case No. 4/2016 on 15.06.2017, 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
