Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chaudhary Ambalal Govabhai on 8 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1331 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHAUDHARY AMBALAL GOVABHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 08/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is 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 and Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge ,
Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial
Court") in Special Electricity Case No. 33/2009 on
31.05.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
the respondent for the offence punishable under Section
135(1)(a) of The Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
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 The complainant - Arunkumar Natwarlal Sheth was
working as Deputy Engineer, UGVCL Mansa Sub Division
and on 17.06.2009, Junior Engineer - J. A. Damor along
with helpers T. N. Rathore, K. A. Damore, B. B. Patel, K. J.
Thakore and P. S. Asari had gone for checking the electricity
connections in Mansa Sub Division. The accused was not a
consumer of electricity of UGVCL but had directly taken a
connection from the LT Line with a 2.5 mm yellow color 25
meter wire and was committing theft of electricity. After the
due procedure was done, a bill of theft of electricity of Rs.
9223.94/- was given on 18.06.2009 to the accused but the
same was not paid and hence, the complainant filed the
complaint which was registered at GEB AEC Police Station,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
Surat II - C.R No. 274 of 2009 under Section 135(1A) of the
Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
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, Mansa and as the said offences against the
accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,
the case was committed to the Special Court, Gandhinagar
as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and the case was registered as Special Electricity
Case No. 33/2009.
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. 8 was framed against the
accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exh. 9, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and produced 8
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/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
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, the respondent has not appeared
either in person 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. 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/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
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. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the
present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the
observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of
interference in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa
& Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC
415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial
court".
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
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 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 appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
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, 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
theft of electricity. PW1 - Arunkumar Natwarlal Seth
examined at Exh. 14 is the complainant who has filed the
written complaint which was sent to Police Inspector, GEB
Police Station, Sabarmati Circle which is produced at Exh.
15 but it appears that the witness had not gone for
checking and he had filed the complaint on the basis of the
information from the Junior Engineer and has no personal
knowledge of the incident. The bill that was given to the
accused was paid on the same day and if the bill which is
produced at Exh. 19 is produced, there is no date
mentioned on the bill.
The complainant has produced the checking report at
Exh. 16, the Rojkam at Exh. 17, the notice sent to the
accused at Exh. 18 and the bill at Exh. 19 but it appears
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
that all these documents were not executed in the presence
of the complainant and he has no personal knowledge
about the incident.
8.1 PW2 - Jashpalkumar Amrutlal Damore examined at
Exh. 20 was working as a Junior Engineer and he had gone
along with staff members T.N. Rathod, K.R. Damore, D.B.
Patel, K.J. Thakor and T.S. Asari for checking the electricity
connections and had found that the accused was
committing theft of electricity. All the documents were
executed and after coming to the office, the theft was
reported to the Deputy Engineer who had filed the case. It
appears that the wire that was the muddamal through
which the theft of electricity was being committed was not
produced before the Investigating Officer during
investigation and the wire was directly produced by PW2 -
Jashpalkumar Amrutlal Damor before the learned Trial
Court and he had stated that this was the wire that was
used by the accused for committing the theft of electricity
even though the accused was not a consumer of electricity.
In the cross examination, it has emerged that only the office
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
staff had gone and no independent witnesses were present
at the time of the checking and the wire that was produced
by the witness before the learned Trial Court was easily
available in the market. Moreover, there was no document
on record to show that the place which was checked was
the house of the accused.
8.2 PW3 - Kiritbhai Ramanbhai Damor examined at Exh.
25, PW4 - Prakashbhai Shakrabhai Asari examined at Exh.
26, PW5 - Bipinkumar Bakorbhai Patel examined at Exh.
27, PW6 - Kachraji Jitaji Thakur examined at Exh. 28 and
PW8 - Talaji Nathaji Rathod examined at Exh. 32 were all
working as helpers in the UGVCL in Mansa Sub Division
and they had gone along with PW2 - Junior Engineer -
Jashpalkumar Amrutlal Damor for checking of the
electricity connections and they have all stated the same
facts as narrated by PW2 - Jashpalkumar Amrutlal Damor
but in the evidence of all the witnesses it has emerged that
there were no independent persons along with them and
the witnesses from PW3 to PW6 were helpers and working
as per the directions of the Deputy Engineer. Moreover,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
during the raid they had not seized any document to show
that the accused was the owner or occupier of the house
which was checked and the wire that was produced by PW2
- Jashpalkumar Amrutlal Damor during his deposition
before the learned Trial Court was easily available in the
market.
8.3 PW7 - Shankarbhai Mavjibhai Kotwal is the PSO who
has registered the complaint and has produced the copy of
the Station Diary at Exh. 30. As per the document
produced at Exh. 30, the offence was committed on
17.02.2009 but the complaint was filed on 06.03.2009 after
a delay of more than 19 days.
8.4 PW9 - Bhemabhai Velabhai Bharwad examined at
Exh. 33 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During
the cross examination, the witness has stated that the
complaint was given 15 days after the incident and during
investigation it was found that the bill of the theft of
electricity was paid and no evidence was found that the
theft of electricity had taken place. Moreover, during
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
investigation, the statements of no independent witnesses
have been recorded.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the complainant PW1 - Arunkumar Natwarlal
Sheth had not gone for checking of the electricity
connection and he has no personal knowledge of the theft
or the place where the checking had taken place. PW2 -
Jashpalkumar Amrutlal Damor was working as a Junior
Engineer and he had gone along with helpers. PW3 -
Kiritbhai Ramanbhai Damor, PW4 - Prakashbhai
Shakrabhai Asari, PW5 - Bipinkumar Bakorbhai Patel, PW6
- Kachraji Jitaji Thakur and PW8 - Talaji Nathaji Rathod
but all the witnesses say that they had not seized any
documentary evidence to show that the place where they
had checked was in the ownership or possession of the
accused. There is no evidence on record to show that the
checking had actually taken place as there is no evidence to
show that the persons who had gone for checking were
authorized by any superior officer to go for checking.
Admittedly, the wire that was alleged to have been used by
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
the accused for committing the theft of electricity was not
produced before the Investigating Officer though the
complaint produced at Exh. 15 states that the yellow
coloured wire which was about 25 meters in length was
sent along with the complaint but it appears that the same
was not produced before the Investigating Officer even at
the time of filing of the complaint or during investigation.
Hence, the muddamal wire was not produced before the
learned Trial Court in the proper manner and PW2 -
Jaspalkumar Amrutlal Damor brought the wire before the
learned Trial Court directly at the time of recording of his
evidence. There is no iota of evidence as to where this wire
was kept from 17.02.2009 when the checking was done and
as to whether it was duly sealed and seized in the proper
manner. Moreover, though there were independent
witnesses available at the time of the incident, no
independent witnesses have been examined before the
learned Trial Court and at the time of the checking or
thereafter, no panchnama of the place of offence has come
on record. There are no documentary evidences to show
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
that theft of electricity had taken place and the learned
Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence on record.
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 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/1331/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned and Special Judge and Additional
Sessions Judge , Gandhinagar (in Special Electricity Case
No. 33/2009 on 31.05.2012, is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
