Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mohmed Hafiz Abdul Latif Vohra on 11 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1108 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MOHMED HAFIZ ABDUL LATIF VOHRA
================================================================
Appearance:
MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 11/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State
under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the judgment and the
order passed by the learned Special Judge, (Electricity), Mehsana
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') dated 13.04.2010 in
Special (Electricity) Case No.11 of 2009 , whereby, the Trial Court
has acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
Sections 135(1)(B) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act'). 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 relevant facts leading to filing of the present
appeal are as under:
2.1. The complainant Ramanbhai Joitabhai Patel was
working as Deputy Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board (hereinafter
referred to as 'GEB'), Sub-Division Vijapur and the accused was a
consumer of electricity of GEB and was given Consumer
No.21701/01137/9. On 24-01-2008 at around 7.30am, Junior
Engineer M.R.Patel, A.R.Solanki and Lineman M.G.Katara, on the
instructions of the complainant Ramanbhai Joitabhai Patel, had
gone for checking of electricity connections in Vijapur town and
had checked the electricity connection of the accused. It was found
that the accused had cut the service line, which was coming from
the electricity connection of single phase meter, and taken it to the
main switch in the bathroom and had directly connected the
electricity connection by-passing the meter by a 1/18 red color
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
wire. The accused was committing theft of electricity and after the
due procedure, it was found that a theft of electricity of
Rs.11,562.73 paise was committed, and as earlier too, on 18-06-
2005, the accused was caught committing theft of electricity, the
complainant filed a complaint, which came to be registered as
Sabarmati GEB Police Station, II-C.R.No.105 of 2008 under Section
135 of the Indian Electricity Act.
2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was
carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having
sufficient material against the accused, a chargesheet came to be
filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case
was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion
of the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was
committed to the Sessions Court, Mehsana and the same was
registered as Special (Electricity) Case No.11 of 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.5 and the
statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.6, wherein, the
accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire
evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution
has examined 05 witnesses and has produced 15 documentary
evidences in support of the case.
2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned
APP at Exh32, the further statement of the accused under Section
313 of the Code was recorded wherein the accused denied the
evidence and refused to step into the witness box and lead
evidence. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and
learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the
documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned
judgment and order, has acquitted the accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 135(1)(B) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the
appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that
the impugned judgment and order passed by learned the Trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of
justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned
Trial Court is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the
case and also on presumptions, not permitted by law. The learned
Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused though there are
ample and cogent evidence to connect the accused with the crime
and the offence registered against him. The learned Trial Court has
not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence
on record in its true spirit. The learned Trial Court has
erroneously came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed
to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court
is illegal, invalid, improper, perverse and bad in law and the same
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant -
State and learned advocate Mr.Piyush Trivedi for learned advocate
Mr.Pratik Barot for the respondent No.2. Perused the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire
evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
5. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State
has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the
prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial
Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the
prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the the case
and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the
learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted
the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by
learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and
principles of justice. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash
and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to
find the accused guilty for the said offence and impose maximum
sentence on the accused.
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 the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, the Apex Court has
observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 :
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
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 ac-
quittal 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 cir-
cumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes',
etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an ap-
pellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phrase-
ologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language'
to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to in-
terfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the
Court to review the evidence and to come to its own con-
clusion.
(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 avail-
able 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 acquit-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
tal, the presumption of his innocence is further rein-
forced, 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. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against
acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that
no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after
appreciation of the evidence produced before the Trial Court, it
appears that there are some manifest illegality of perversity which
could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a
settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court
to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall
not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the
accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The
golden thread which runs through the web of administration of
justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the
evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the
accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the
accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the
view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can
interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there
are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly
unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion
that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
8. As the case of the prosecution is a case of theft of
electricity, the prosecution has to prove that the accused has
actually committed the theft of electricity and PW-1, Ramanbhai
Joitabhai Patel examined at Exh.8 is the complainant, who has
produced the complaint at Exh.14. The witness did not go for
checking of the electricity connections and has stated that the
consumer of electricity was Mohammadbhai Adambhai, who had
expired and the possession of the house was with his nephew,
Mohammad Hafiz Abdulmiyan, in whose presence, the officers
had checked the electricity connection, and after the due
procedure, bill of theft of Rs.11,652/- was given. The witness has
produced the bill at Exh.9, the Annexure-C at Exh.10, the earlier
bill dated 21.06.2005 at Exh.11, notice given for the earlier theft at
Exh.12 and the proforma in the earlier case at Exh.13. The witness
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
has also produced the checking sheet dated 24-01-2008 at Exh.15.
In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that he has not
produced any authority to file the complaint and he had no
personal knowledge of the checking that had taken place on
24.01.2018 or the theft of electricity that had taken place on
18.06.2005. In the complaint, he has not stated that the consumer of
electricity had expired and has not stated that the accused was the
owner or occupier of the house. In the complaint, he has not stated
that the cable and meter box were given and the assessment bill
and notice and the procedure of assessment bill and notice was
done in the name of Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai Vohra. The
amount was paid and the reconnection of the electricity was also
done, and in the conversation, he had come to know that
Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai Vohra had expired. In the checking
sheet produced at Exh.15, there is no description of the house that
was checked and no address of the home.
8.1. PW-2 Mithabhai Ramanbhai examined at Exh.16 was a
member of the Checking Squad that had gone for checking on
24.01.2008 and he has identified the accused and the other
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
documents including the notice produced at Exh.17. In the cross
examination, the witness has admitted that the document
produced at Exh.15, which is the checking sheet does not give the
address in Vijapur and also the time when the electricity
connection was checked. There is also no mention regarding the
persons who were residing in the house and the signature of the
consumer is not taken in Column-10 of the checking sheet.
Moreover, it is not clearly mentioned that the signature of the
representative of the consumer was taken and in the notice
produced at Exh.17, the complete address of the accused or the
consumer is not given. The place that they had checked was in a
residential area and there were a number of residences
surrounding the property and they had not written the census
number on the documents.
8.2. PW-3 Rajendraprasad Chandulal Desai examined at
Exh.20 was also a member of the checking squad and he has
produced the checking sheet dated 18.06.2005 which is the
document of the first theft committed by the accused. In the cross-
examination, the witness has admitted that in the document
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
produced at Exh.21, it is not mentioned that the house of the
accused was checked and the number of the pole, from which, the
theft of electricity was taking place is not mentioned. That the
meter and wire were seized but the same is not mentioned in the
document produced at Exh.21 and the signature of the consumer is
not taken in the same.
8.3. PW-4 Sajjansinh Manuji Chavda examined at Exh.24 is
the P.S.O., Sabarmati GEB Police Station, who has registered the
complaint of the complainant. The witness has admitted that along
with the complaint, no muddamal was sent to the police station.
8.4. PW-5 Prabhatsinh Kodarsinh Rathod examined at
Exh.27 is the Investigating Officer, who stated that after he had
taken over the investigation, he had gone to the house of the
accused and found that Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai Vohra had
expired on 09.09.1989 and the statements of the family members
and neighbours were taken that he had expired. The witness has in
the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the complaint
does not mention the street and the place of offence is merely
mentioned as 'Kasba'. The complaint and the checking sheet do
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
not mention the house number and even in the statements of the
witnesses, no house number is mentioned. No panchnama of the
place of offence was drawn during the checking procedure.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, as per the evidence, the first checking was done on
18-06-2005 and the second checking was done on 24.01.2008. As
per the complaint produced at Exh.14, Mohammedbhai
Ahmedbhai Vhora was the consumer of electricity and was given
electricity connection No.21701/01137/9. The case has been filed
against Mohammed Hafiz Abdul Latif Vhora and from the
documents i.e. bill produced at Exh.9, the checking sheet produced
at Exh.15 and the notice produced at Exh.17, all these documents
bear the name of Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai Vhora, who as per
the deposition of PW-5 Prabhatsinh Kodarsinh Rathor, the
Investigating Officer had expired on 09.09.1989. The complaint
produced at Exh.15 has also been filed in the name of the deceased
Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai Vhora and the Investigating Officer
has produced a letter written to the Nagarpalika, Vijapur
Nagarpalika Burro, at Exh.29 seeking for information regarding
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai Vhora, the details of Mohammedbhai
Ahmedbhai Vhora and the letter of Vijapur Nagarpalika produced
at at Exh.30 has been received, wherein, in para-5, it is stated that
house No.3.5132 in the name of Vhora Mohammedbhai
Ahmedbhai was in the occupation of his nephews Mohammed
Hafiz Abdul Latif Vhora, Mohammed Rafiq Abdul Latif Vhora
and Mohammed Iqbal Abdul Latif Vhora. Hence, as per the
evidence, it has come on record that on 24.01.2008, when the
checking was done by PW-2 Mithabhai Ramanbhai and PW-3
Rajendraprasad Chandulal Desai, the consumer, in whose name,
electricity connection No.21701/ 01137/9 was given had already
expired on 09.09.1989. The prosecution has come up with a case
that earlier on 18.06.2005, the first checking was done and it was
found that theft of electricity had taken place and the earlier notice
is produced at Exh.12, bill at Exh.11 and proforma at Exh.13, but
all these documents bear the name of Mohammedbhai Ahmedbhai
Vhora, who had expired on 09.09.1989. From the evidence, it is
proved that the officers of the GEB were well aware on 18.06.2005,
when they had done the first checking of electricity at consumer
No.21701/01137/9 that the consumer Mohammedbhai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
Ahmedbhai Vhora had expired, and thereafter, again the checking
has been done on 24.01.2008 and the procedure was done in the
name of the same consumer but the case has been filed against the
present accused. In the document at Exh.30, which is the letter of
the Nagarpalika, it states that the house of Mohammedbhai
Ahmedbhai Vhora was in the possession of his three nephews
Mohammed Hafeez Abdul Latif Vhora, Mohammed Rafiq Abdul
Latif Vhora and Mohammed Iqbal Abdul Latif Vhora, but the case
has been filed only against the present accused. In the further
statement, it has been the defence of the accused that he was not
residing in the house and was only a neighbour and even in the
further statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the same defence has been taken and there is
nothing forthcoming on record that the accused was in possession
of the house where the checking had taken place on the date of on
24-01-2008.
10. In view of the above, the leanred trial Court has
appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there
does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1108/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
judgment and order of acquittal. The leanred Trial Court has
appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered
opinion that the leanred Trial Court was completely justified in
acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The
findings recorded by the leanred Trial Court are absolutely just
and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by
the leanred trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement
with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of
acquittal recorded by the leanred 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.
11. The impugned judgment and the order dated
13.04.2010 in Special (Electricity) Case No.11 of 2009 passed by the
learned Special Judge, (Electricity), Mehsana 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)
F.S.KAZI.....
