Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Manharba Batuksinh Jadeja on 30 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1686/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1686 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MANHARBA BATUKSINH JADEJA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D. M. VYAS
Date : 30/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 25/07/2012
passed in Special (GEB) Case No.21 of 2009 on the file of the
learned Special Judge, Jamnagar whereby the respondent-
accused was acquitted of the charges for the offences
punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act,
2003.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the version on the side of
the complainant is that, on 07/03/2006, at the time of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1686/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025
undefined
checking by the staff of the concerned Electricity Department
at the house of the accused, the accused was found
committing offence of theft of electricity by doing some
wrongful wire set up and therefore the officer of the raiding
party prepared a report and seized muddamal wire and
submitted the same before the office of the GEB and on the
basis of the same, supplementary bill of Rs.24536.40 was
prepared and sent to the accused. As the same was not paid
by the accused, the officer of the GEB filed a complaint being
II-C.R. No.401 of 2007 before the GEB Police Station, Rajkot
against the accused.
3. It was investigated and after recording statements of
concerned witnesses arrested the accused and produced him
before the concerned court wherein the accused has been
released on bail. Thereafter as there was enough evidence
against the accused, the Investigation Officer filed the charge
sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and
the same was numbered as Criminal Case No.303 of 2009. As
the case was exclusively triable by the sessions division, the
same was transmitted before the learned Special Judge,
Jamnagar.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1686/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025
undefined
4. In the trial court, the charge for the aforesaid offence
was framed against the accused. Charge was read over to the
accused. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be
tried.
5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution got
examined PW-1 to PW-3 witnesses and got marked 7 exhibits
to substantiate its case against the accused.
6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, further
statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
was recorded with regard to incriminating circumstances
made in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and the
accused has denied it.
7. At the end of the trial, after considering the evidence on
record and on appreciation of the same, the trial court found
the accused not guilty for the aforesaid offence and acquitted
him of the alleged charge.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the
State has preferred the present appeal challenging the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1686/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025
undefined
legality and validity of the impugned judgment of acquittal.
9. When the appeal came up for hearing, this Court has
heard learned APP Ms. Krina Calla for the appellant-State.
Despite service of notice, the respondent did not turn up for
hearing, for the reasons best known to him. As it is an old
appeal of the year 2012, listed under the caption "critically
old matters" for final hearing, this Court is not inclined to
adjourn the hearing of the appeal. Therefore, this Court has
decided to go through the record and proceedings and dispose
of the appeal on merits considering the material available on
record.
10. This Court has heard learned APP at length on facts and
on provisions of law. Learned APP submitted the facts of the
charge levelled against the respondent accused and referred
the oral and documentary evidence produced during the trial
and vehemently argued that accused was found committing
theft of the electricity by the officers of the raiding party and
accordingly committed an offence as alleged against him and
vehemently argued that the learned trial court has failed to
appreciate the prosecution evidence while acquitting the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1686/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025
undefined
accused and hence the same is required to be interfered by
this Court in this appeal.
11. This Court has deeply scrutinized the prosecution
evidence, impugned judgment and considered the arguments
of the learned APP.
12. The prosecution has examined the material witness PW-
2 Anilbhai Dhanjibhai Marvania vide Exh.15. During the chief
examination, he has stated that he was performing duty as a
Junior Engineer in Darbargadh Sub Division, Jamnagar on
07/03/2006. It is further stated that on 07/03/2006 he has
proceeded for checking with the line staff at the house of the
accused. It is further stated that the respondent accused
found illegally using electric powers without electric meter
directly connecting the electric wires to the electric poles and
committed theft of electricity. He has stated the facts of the
procedure of checking and preparing documentary evidence
and produced the same vide Exh.16 and Exh.17.
12.1. During the cross examination, he has admitted the fact
that he has not obtained any written permission from the
higher authority about checking and not prepared the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1686/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025
undefined
recovery panchnama in presence of panchas/mediators. He
has stated that he has not obtained any documentary evidence
related to ownership or possession of checking place.
13. Considering the testimony of the said prosecution
witness and the documentary evidence produced during his
deposition, it appears that he has not collected any relevant
document relating to the ownership or possession of the place
of incident. This fact is required to be considered.
14. The prosecution has examined PW-1, complainant at
Exh.8. Considering the testimony of the said witness, he has
no personal knowledge about the alleged incident. It appears
from his deposition that the date of checking is 07/03/2006
and the complaint is filed on 26/04/2006 and no any
explanation for the delay sin the FIR.
15. The prosecution has examined PW-3, Investigating
Officer at Exh.19. He has stated the fact that during the
investigation, he has not recovered any muddamal and not
prepared the panchnama of place of incident and not recorded
the statements of the independent witnesses and not collected
the documentary evidence of the said place.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1686/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025
undefined
16. Considering the oral as well as documentary evidence
produced by the prosecution and the charge levelled against
the respondent accused for the offence punishable under
Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, in other
words, charge against the accused, theft of electricity amount
of Rs.24,536.40, considering the important aspect that the
Investigating Officer has not seized/recovered any instrument
or any electric wire used in alleged act of theft of electricity
power, in absence of such important evidence, the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of
the said theft i.e. the alleged charge against the respondent-
accused.
17. Further, considering the findings recorded in the
impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court
has referred the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in case of State of Gujarat vs. Karsan Chakubhai Parmar
(Criminal Appeal No.969 of 2009), which is completely
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
18. It appears from the record that the prosecution has
failed to prove the ingredients of alleged offence and no iota
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1686/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/08/2025
undefined
of evidence produced on record to prove the same.
19. Upon considering the evidence on record and on proper
appreciation of the same, the trial court arrived at a right
conclusion and acquitted the accused. Upon re-appraisal of
the said evidence, this Court is also of the view that no case is
made out for the alleged charge against the accused. So, the
impugned judgment of the trial court cannot be disturbed as it
warrants no interference in this appeal. Accordingly, present
appeal fails and liable to be dismissed.
20. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the
judgment of the acquittal of the trial court. Bail bond of the
accused, if any, shall stand discharged.
21. Record and proceedings be sent back forthwith to the
concerned court.
(D. M. VYAS, J)
ILA
