Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Naranbhai Badaji Kalal on 14 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1594/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1594 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NARANBHAI BADAJI KALAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.CHETNA SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 14/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the
judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge
& 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha @ Himmatnagar
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (GEB)
Case No. 53 of 2010 on 02-11-2012, 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/1594/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
1.1] The respondent is hereinafter referred to as "the accused"
and file 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 in possession of a residential house
situated in village Dadhvav, Taluka Vjaynagar, District Sabarkantha and
on 22-08-2008, Junior Engineer - Shilpaben Amrathrai Patel, Junior
Engineer - D. M. Parmar and Helper - Kanaiyalal Punjabhai Patel of
Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited (UGVCL) had gone to check the
electricity connections at village Dadhvav in Vijaynagar Taluka, District
Sabarkantha on 22-08-2008 and found that the accused was a non-
consumer but had changed the polarity of the meter, which was burnt and
had directly joined the electricity connection in an illegal-way. After the
due procedure, it was found that the accused had committed theft of
electricity of Rs.64,096.00 paisa and the complainant - Laljibhai Pataji
Dadhi, Deputy Engineer, UGVCL, Vijaynagar filed a complaint at the
UGVCL Police Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad under Section 135 of the
Electricity Act which came to be registered at as GEB Police Station,
Sabarmati, Ahmedabad II- C.R.No.1245 of 2008.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1594/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the
connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after
completion of investigation the police filed the charge-sheet against the
accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vijaynagar
and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by
the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the learned Sessions
Judge, Sabarkantha @ Himmatnagar as per the provisions of Section 209
of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Special
(GEB) Case No. 53 of 2010.
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 all the contents of the
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.
2.4] The prosecution produced six oral and nine documentary
evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.28,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1594/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all
the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step
into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that
a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the
accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment
and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the charge leveled
against him.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement
and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal
mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed
by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and
the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses
have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination,
nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case
has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and 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. Hence the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1594/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the appellant -
State. Though rule was served, the resondent has neither appeared in
peron 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. Chetna Shah has taken this Court through the
entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and has submitted
that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence
on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the direct and
indirect evidence in the case. The prosecution has fully proved the case
beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor
contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of
incident. The order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper
and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of
the appellant must be allowed.
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 in
acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1594/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, wherein, the Apex Court has
observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu v. State of M.P., (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC
831, 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". (emphasis supplied)
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;
(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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1594/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
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.
(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 appre-
ciation, 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 light of the above settled principles of law, the evidence
on record of the case is appreciated and the prosecution has examined
Prosecution Witness No. 1 Laljibhai Pataji Dadhi at Exhibit 10 and the
witness is the complainant, who has stated that on 22-08-2008, he was
working as a Deputy Engineer at Vijaynagar and Junior Engineers
Shilpaben Patel and D.M.Parmar and Helper - K.P.Patel had gone and
checked the electricity connection of the accused at Village Dadhvav.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1594/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
The checking sheet was prepared and accordingly, it was found that the
accused had committed theft of electricity of Rs. 64,096.95 paisa and the
bill for theft of electricity as well as the notice was given to the accused
but the amount was not paid. The witness has produced the complaint at
Exhibit 11, the notice sent to the accused at Exhibit 12, the approval of
bill of theft by the Executive Engineer, UGVCL, Idar at Exhibit 13,
Annexure-C at Exhibit 14, the Rojkam by which, the meter was seized at
Exhibit 15, the calculation-sheet at Exhibit 16 and the letter sent by the
ASI, GEB Police Station, Sabarmati Ahmedabad regarding safe custody
of the muddamal at Exhibit 17.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he did not go for checking and he has
no personal knowledge about the checking of electricity that was done by
the officers. The accused was a non-consumer and as per the say of the
officers, there was a burnt meter at the spot. Any person, who makes an
application for electricity connection, would be given a meter and in the
complaint, he has not stated that the accused had changed the phase and
neutral-wires and was committing theft of electricity. There is no
explanation regarding the delay in filing of the complaint and no
evidence that the notice was sent by Registered Post AD to the accused,
has been produced on record. There was no evidence regarding the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1594/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
ownership of the house, where the checking was done and he has no
personal knowledge about the procedure that was done at the spot. The
witness has stated that the accused was earlier a consumer of electricity
but was a non-consumer on the date of checking.
8.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Kannaiyalal Punjabhai Patel
examined at Exhibit 18 is the Helper , who had gone along with Junior
Engineer Shilpaben Patel and Junior Engineer D.M.Parmar at village
Dadhvav, at the time of the checking. The witness has supported the case
of the prosecution and in the cross-examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, the witness has stated that there is a squad by the
company but he is not a member of the squad. He did not prepare the
documents but the documents were prepared by Shilpaben Patel and he
does not know, whether the accused was a consumer of the PGVCL or
not. Any person would be given a meter only if he is a consumer of the
PGVCL and at the time of checking a meter was in the house. No
panchnama regarding, the wire that was seized, was drawn and he did
not draw the bill. He does not know whether the meeting meter was
tested in the laboratory or not.
8.2 Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Shilpaben Amratbhai Patel
examined at Exhibit 19 is the Junior Engineer, who had gone along with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1594/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
Junior Engineer D.M.Parmar and Helper - Kannaiyalal Punjabhai Patel
for checking. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and
during the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that there is a electricity checking squad formed by the
company but she is not a member of the squad and a person is given a
meter at the time when he applies for an electricity connection from the
company. If the connection was closed, the meter was taken back and
when they went to the place for checking a meter, was at the house. The
accused was not a consumer of electricity and the place that they had
checked was a rural area and a residential area but she did not inquire
regarding the ownership of the house and did not seize any documents
regarding the ownership of the house. No panchnama was drawn during
the checking and they did not inquire as to why the meter was burned.
8.3 Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Babubhai Ramabhai
Chaudhury examined at Exhibit 22 is the Investigating Officer, who has
stated that he had investigated the offence and had filed the charge-sheet.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he did not draw any panchnama of
the place of offence and did not draw any panchnama regarding the
muddamal that was seized and he did not seize any muddamal during
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1594/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
investigation. He did not seize any revenue record regarding the
ownership of the house that was checked and no acknowledgement that
the bill was sent to the accused was seized by him during investigation.
The complaint was filed after a delay of three months but there was no
explanation from the complainant regarding the delay in filing of the
complaint. During investigation, it was found that the meter was burnt
but he did not investigate, whether, the meter was checked in the
laboratory or not and did not inquire regarding the reasons for the meter
to be burnt. The meter was at the house of the accused and the accused
was a consumer of the electricity.
8.4 Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Haribhai Malabhai Taral was
working as the Talati-cum-Mantri of village Dadhav and he has produced
the Assessment-Sheet of property No. 480, which was a residential house
in the name of the accused situated in Dadhav at Exhibit 25.
8.5 Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Rehmankhan Namatkhan
Belim examined at Exhibit 26 is the PSO, who has registered the
complaint and has produced the copy of the Station Diary at Exhibit 27.
During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the checking was done on 22-08-
2008 and the complaint was filed on 25-11-2008 but there was no reason
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1594/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
for delay in filing of the complaint mentioned in the complaint. The
complaint did not mention any details about any Muddamal and in the
complaint, it was stated that the accused was not a consumer of UGVCL
and the motor was completely burnt.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it
is on record that the checking was done by Junior Engineer Shilpaben
Patel, Junior Engineer D.M.Parmar and Helper - Kanhaiyalal Punjabhai
Patel on 22-08-2008 but the complaint has been filed on 24-11-2008 and
there is no explanation regarding the delay in filing of the complaint. As
per the case of the prosecution, the place where the checking had taken
place, was a residential house, which was in the possession of the accused
but there is no iota of evidence that the place, that was checked, was in
fact in possession of the accused at the time of the checking. Moreover, it
has emerged on record that the place that they checked had a meter that
was burnt and the evidence of the officers states that only a person, who
had applied for an electricity connection would be given an electricity
meter but the meter that was in the house of the accused was a burnt out
meter. There is no explanation regarding how the meter of the PGVCL,
which could not be otherwise available in the open market came to be
fixed in the house of the accused. The Investigating Officer has admitted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1594/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
that as the house of the accused had a meter, he was a consumer of
electricity. Moreover, the notice produced at Exhibit 12 has been sent to
the accused as per the case of the prosecution along with the bill but there
is no evidence as to whether this notice was in fact received by the
accused and the notice produced at Exhibit 12 states that the notice was
sent by registered Post AD. The prosecution has examined Prosecution
Witness No. 5 Haribhai Malabhai Taral who was working as the Talat-
cum-Manti Mantri at village Dadhvav and he has produced the
Assessment Sheet of property No. 480 situated in village Dhadvav but in
the evidence of the prosecution there is nothing on record to show that the
place where the checking had taken place was property No. 480 situated
in village Dadhvav. The complainant has not produced any authorization
from any superior officer for filing of the complaint and the complainant
- Laljibhai Pataji Dadhi did not go for checking at the place of incident
and had no personal knowledge about the theft of electricity in taking
place. No photographs or videography of the procedure, that was done by
the officers, have been produced on record and Prosecution Witness No. 3
Shilpaben Amratbhai Patel Junior Engineer and Prosecution Witness No.
2 Kannaiyalal Punjabhai Patel - Helper have both stated that they were
not members of the checking squad and no documentary evidence to
show that they were authorized to go for checking has been produced on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1594/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
record. Admittedly, as per the case of the prosecution, the checking had
taken place at a residential area and there were other independent
witnesses nearby but no evidence of any independent witnesses come on
record. Moreover, as per the case of the prosecution, a wire was being
used to commit the theft of electricity but no such wire has been produced
by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court. The Learned Trial
Court has discussed the entire evidence on record in detail.
10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of
Chandrappa (supra), 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 extending benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused of the
charges leveled against him. 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 extending benefit of doubt and acquittal recorded by the learned Trial
Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1594/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
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 Sessions Judge & 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha
@ Himmatnagar in Special (GEB) Case No. 53 of 2010 on 02-11-2012
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)
VVM
