Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Chandulal Arjanbhai Nandasana on 27 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/673/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 673 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
CHANDULAL ARJANBHAI NANDASANA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.CHETNA SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HARSHIL C DATTANI(6241) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 27/06/2025
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 dated
29.01.2016 in Special (Electricity) Case No.298 of 2014 passed by the
learned Special Judge and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar
(hereinafter referred to as 'the learned trial Court'), whereby, the learned
trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable
under Sections 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/673/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
'the Act').
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 relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as
under:
2.1. The accused was in possession of a shop situated near Ram Mandir
in Lalpur and was having Consumer No. 82201/04244/1 for consumption
of electricity and was a consumer of Gujarat Electricity Board. The
accused had illegally and unauthorizedly tapped the electric pole in the
main service line and had joined the same in his panel and had bypassed
the meter so that the consumption was not recorded in the meter and on
10-08-2011, when the members of the checking squad of Paschim Gujarat
Vij Company Limited (PGVCL) raided the place, they found that the theft
of electricity had taken place and the accused had consumed electricity
worth Rs.1,42,129.40/-. The complainant Gulamrasul Patel, Deputy
Engineer, filed the complaint under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity
Act 2003, which was registered at G.U.VN.L Police Station II-
C.R.No.1659 of 2011.
2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried
out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/673/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be filed before the
concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable
by the Court of Sessions therefore, after completion of process under
Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court
and the same was registered as Special (Electricity) Case No.298 of 2014.
2.3. The accused were 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 was framed by
the learned trial Court at Exh.3 and the statement of the accused was
recorded at Exh.4, 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 five oral evidences and fourteen
evidences to bring home charge against the accused and after the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 38, 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 his behalf and state that a
false case has been filed against him. After the arguments of the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/673/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
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 all the charges leveled against
him.
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 the learned trial Court is contrary to law,
evidence on record and principles of justice. That 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 not properly appreciated the oral as well
as documentary evidence on record it its true spirit. The prosecution has
failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 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 them. The learned trial Court has also committed an error in
arriving at the conclusion that though the complainant and the
prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution
and there are no material contradictions, the learned trial Court has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/673/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
acquitted the accused. 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. Chetna Shah for the appellant -
State. Though served, the respondent has not appeared either in person or
through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgment and order of
acquittal and has re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on
record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms.Chetna 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 Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and
principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by Judge
is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on
presumption, not permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to
quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/673/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
find the accused guilty for the said offence. Learned APP has urged this
Court to allow the present appeal 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 : 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, re-
striction or condition on exercise of such power and an appel-
late Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclu-
sion, both on questions of fact and of law;
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling rea-
sons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circum-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/673/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
stances', '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 na-
ture 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 competent court of law. Secondly, the accused hav-
ing 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. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/673/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
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 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. In light of the above, the evidence produced by the
prosecution on record is appreciated and the prosecution has examined
Prosecution Witness No. 1 Gulammoyu Gulamrasul Patel at Exh. 9 and
the witness is the complainant and has stated that on 10-08-2011 he was
working as a Deputy Engineer in the Gujarat Electricity Board at Lalpur
Sub-Division. The officers from Baroda Checking Squad i.e. Deputy
Engineer R.P. Desai - Junior Engineer P.R. Parmar and others had gone
for checking of electricity connections and they found theft of electricity
at the shop of the accused. Checking sheet No. 195 and the Annexure IV
was filled up and the wire was disconnected and deposited in Lalpur
Division. A calculation sheet was prepared and it was found that theft of
electricity of Rs.1,42,129.40/- was committed by the accused and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/673/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
complaint which is produced at Exh.10 was filed by the complainant after
the approval from the competent authority. The witness has produced the
approval at Exh.11, Annexure - II at Exh.11-A, Supplementary Bill of
Theft at Exh.12, and Notice to the accused to pay the Supplementary Bill
at Exh.13.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that the checking sheet is dated 10-08-
2011 and the complaint was filed on 21-12-2011. In the complaint filed at
Exh.10, there is no explanation regarding the delay in filing the
complaint. Before going for checking, there was no information at their
office regarding the checking and the officers, who had gone for checking
did not seize any document regarding the ownership of the properties.
The complainant did not go for checking and there are residences and
shops surrounding the place that was raided.
8.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2
Rajeshkumar Balvantrai Desai, at Exh.14 and the witness was working
as a Deputy Engineer in the Vadodara City -I, I.C. Circle Office and had
gone for a checking to Lalpur Village at Jamnagar District along with
Junior Engineer P.R.Parmar and the checking team of Vadodara I.C.
Circle. They had checked the place of the accused and found that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/673/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
meter was bypassed and theft of electricity was taking place. A
videography of the theft of electricity was done and Checking Sheet No.
195 and Annexure IV was prepared.
During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he does not have any authority for
checking and if a team has to go from one district to another district for
checking, they have to take permission from the head office. They had
not received any permission from the head office and they had gone to
Lalpur Sub-Division where they had taken a serviceman with them. The
document at Exh.15 does not bear the signature of any officer from the
Lalpur Sub-Division and they have not collected any documents
regarding the ownership or possession of the shop. They did not prepare
any panchnama at the place and the place where they had raided had
shops and residences surrounding it.
8.2. The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 3,
Dineshbhai Valjibhai Khant at Exh.21 and the witness is the panch
witness of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at
Exh.22. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has
been declared hostile.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/673/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
8.3. Prosecution Witness No. 4 Yuvrajsinh Ranjitsinh Rana
examined at Exh. 24 was working as a PSO at GEB Police Station when
the complaint came to be registered.
8.4 Prosecution Witness No. 5 Pravinbhai Kanjibhai Lila
examined at Exh.33 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail
the procedure undertaken by them during investigation.
During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the
accused, the witness has stated that he has not seized any documentary
evidence about the ownership of Armaan Cable Network and no
muddamal was seized by him during investigation. He has not recorded
the statements of any persons near the shop and he has not recorded the
further statement of the complainant regarding the delay in filing the
complaint.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the evidence that has emerged on record is that Prosecution
Witness No. 2 Rajeshkumar Balvantrai Desai had gone along with other
members of the checking team and had checked the shop of the accused
and found the theft of electricity being committed but besides the oral
evidence of Prosecution Witness No. 2 Rajeshkumar Balvantrai Desai,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/673/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
there is nothing on record to prove that he was authorized to go for
checking. As per his say, he was working in the Vadodara City - I,
I.C.Circle office and if they had to go for checking in some other district,
a permission from the head office was required, but no such permission is
produced on record. The complainant Prosecution Witness No. 1
Gulammoyu Gulamrasul Patel was not a member of the checking team
and as per the complaint, the checking had taken place on 10-8-2011 and
the complaint was filed on 21-12-2011. There is a delay in filing the
complaint, which has not been explained. There is no panchnama, that
was drawn, at the time of checking on 10-8-2011, and after the complaint
was filed, the panchnama of the place of offence was drawn by the
Investigating Officer, but at that time there was no theft of electricity
being committed. As per the say of the complainant, a wire was directly
taken from the electricity pole and the connection was tapped and joined
in such a manner that the meter was bypassed and electricity was being
consumed and they had seized the wire as muddamal, but no such
muddamal has been produced before the learned trial Court.
10. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/673/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
judgment and order of acquittal. The Trial Court has appreciated all the
evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court
was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled
against them. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are absolutely just
and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the trial
Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate
conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the 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 29.01.2016 in
Special (Electricity) Case No.298 of 2014 passed by the learned Special
Judge and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar 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
