Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shaukathusen Abdulrehman Chanki on 27 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 183 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHAUKATHUSEN ABDULREHMAN CHANKI
=============================================
Appearance:
MS C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MM TIRMIZI(1117) 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 24.02.2011 in Special (Electricity) Case No.26 of 2010
passed by the learned Special Judge and 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, District Panchmahal at Godhra (hereinafter referred to as
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
'the learned Trial Court'), whereby, the learned Trial Court has
acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under
Sections 135(1)(B) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter
referred to as '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 complainant Kiranbhai Balchandra Garg was
working as a Deputy Engineer in the Madhya Gujarat Vij
Company Ltd. (MGVCL), Halol Rural Office and on 08.04.2008, he
had gone along with Checking Officer, B.H.Chaudhary and the
Deputy Engineer of the Checking Squad for checking electricity
connections in village Baska, Taluka Halol, District Panchmahals.
On checking Consumer No.07307/10451/2 of the accused,
Shaukathusen Abdul Rehman Chanki, they found the meter to be
suspicious and the meter was packed and brought to the
laboratory for checking. On 24-06-2008, the meter was checked in
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
the presence of the consumer and it was found that the four plastic
body seals of the meter were tampered with and the recording of
the units of electricity was obstructed and a bill of theft of
electricity of Rs.2,30,969.20 and compounding charges of
Rs.12,000/-, and in all, a bill of Rs.2,42,969.20 was given to the
accused on 4-07-2008. The bill was not paid by the consumer and
complainant Kiranbhai Bhalchandra Garg filed the complaint at
the MGVCL Police Station, which was registered MGVCL Police
Station, Gotri, Vadodara I-CR No.1110 of 2008 under Section 135
(B) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
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, the 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 and the same was registered as
Special (Electricity) Case No.26 of 2010.
2.3. The accused was duly served with the summons and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
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. The prosecution
examined 10 witnesses and produced 10 documentary evidences
in support of the case.
2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned
APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code was recorded. 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, acquitted the accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 135(1)(B) of the Indian Electricity Act,
2003.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
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. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal 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 appreciating the fact that there are direct and indirect
evidence connecting the respondent with crime produced in this
case and has erroneously came to the conclusion that the
prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused though
there is ample and cogent evidence to connect the accused with the
crime and the offence registered against him. The learned Trial
Court 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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
4. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant -
State and learned advocate Mr. Deepak Vigora for learned
advocate Mr.M.M.Tirmizi for the respondent No.1. Perused the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have 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. 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. 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. Learned APP has urged this
Court to allow the present appeal and impose maximum sentence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
on the accused.
5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Deepak Vigora for learned
advocate Mr.M.M.Tirmizi for the respondent No.1 has submitted
that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in
proper perspective and no interference of this Court is required
and has urged this Court to reject the appeal of the appellant.
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)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
........ 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-
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
examined PW-1 Kiranbhai Bhalchandra Garg at Exh.6 and the
witness is the complainant who has stated that in the year 2008, he
had gone for checking at the place of the accused, and at that time,
the accused was not at home. The wife of the accused telephoned
him and told him that they had come to change the meter and they
received his consent. That a checking sheet was prepared and the
old meter was taken and the new meter was fixed and the
electricity connection was joined. On 26-04-2000, the meter was
checked in the laboratory in the presence of the accused and it was
found that the meter was tampered with and the reading of the
meter was obstructed and a bill of theft of electricity was given to
him. The complaint was filed which is produced at Exh.7. During
the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that the checking was done on 08.04.2008, but
the meter was not removed on 08.04.2008. The meter was removed
on 15.05.2008 and as per the report produced at Exh.12 no seal
numbers is mentioned on the meter. The meter was not checked on
15.05.2008 at the place and no procedure regarding the meter was
done at the place where it was fixed. The witness has stated that
on 08.04.2008 he did not go for checking and he does not know
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
what was the position of the meter on that day. He had given the
notice to the accused and in Exh.12 the Consumer Number is
07307-10451-2, but in the notice produced at Exh.8, the Consumer
Number is 07358-00149-4 and the same number is written in the
bill, which is produced at Exh.9. The witness has admitted that the
consumer numbers in the notice produced at Exh.8 and Exh.9 are
different. The laboratory test of the meter was done on 24.06.2008
and no test was done prior to 24.06.2008, but the bill produced at
Exh.9, has been prepared on the basis of the report of the
Laboratory Inspector dated 17-06-2008.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW-2 Tayyab Usman
Yayman at Exh.14 and PW-3 Mohammad Muskeen Nazar Ali
Makrani at Exh.16. Both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of
the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at
Exh.15. Both the witnesses have stated that they had affixed their
signature on the road as the police had called them and they have
not gone to the house of the accused to draw the Panchnama. The
witnesses have been declared hostile and have been cross
examined at length by the learned APP, but nothing to support the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
case of the prosecution has come on record.
8.2. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Devidas Haribhai
Chaudhary at Exh.18 and the witness was working as a Deputy
Engineer in the Godhra Circle on 08.04.2008 and he had gone
along with the other staff members for checking at Baska village.
The meter of the accused was checked and they found the meter to
be suspicious and they prepared the Checking Sheet No. 385 and
took the meter for checking to the Halol Division Laboratory. All
the procedure was conducted in the presence of Rabiyaben, the
wife of the accused and a paper seal was affixed on the paper.
They had informed the Deputy Engineer Mr.K.B.Garg to conduct
the further procedure and the witness has produced the meter
sheet at Exh.19. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the place,
where they had gone for checking, was a congested area and
independent panch witnesses were available. That no female
member was in their Checking Squad and when they went to the
place for checking, no male person was present at that place. No
accurate test or MRI test was done on the meter and they could
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
have put a parallel meter to check whether the meter was moving
slowly. They had affixed a paper seal on the meter, but thereafter,
he does not know who had seized the meter, and in what
condition, the meter was and he has no personal knowledge about
the laboratory test of the meter. They did not seize any documents
regarding the ownership or possession of the property where the
checking was conducted and the meter that was checked was of
Consumer No. 07307/1045/2 and they did not check the meter of
Consumer No.07358/00149/4.
8.3. The prosecution has examined PW-5 at Exh.20 and the
witness was working as a Meter Inspector in the Halol Division
Office Laboratory. The witness has stated that the meters are
generally sent from the Halol Sub Division and the papers of the
consumer are sent to the laboratory and the consumer is also
present. The meter is inspected in the presence of a Senior
Technician and an officer of the Sub Division and the consumer.
On 24.06.2008, the meter of the accused was received at the
laboratory, which was brought by the person of the MGVCL and
the meter was inspected in the presence of the accused. The body
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
seal, terminal seals etc. were checked and it was found that the
body seal was tampered and the Y-phase was loose and scratched
and the laboratory report, which is produced at Exh.21, was
prepared. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate
for the accused, the witness has stated that the meter was not
opened in the presence of any independent panch witnesses and
there is no mention that the meter was running slowly. No MRI
test or accurate test was done on the meter and the Electric
Inspector was not present when the meter was checked. The
witness does not know who had brought the meter and when the
meter was brought to her there was no seal of MGVCL on it.
8.4. The prosecution has examined PW-6 Divakar Vasudev
Vyas at Exh.22 and the witness was working as a Deputy Engineer
in the Halol Laboratory of MGVCL on 24.06.2008. The witness has
stated that meter was brought for inspection to the laboratory and
in his presence Junior Engineer Taviyadben Senior Technician
Tadvibhai and Junior Engineer V.N.Patel had inspected the meter
in his presence. In the presence of the consumer, the meter was
opened and checked and the boxing was suspicious and they
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
found that the male and female part adhesive solution was refitted
and tampered and on checking the body seal of the meter, the
male female seal data was scratched and was refitted with a
solution and tampered. The Y-phase main side screw was loose
and scratched and they found that the meter was tampered and
the inspection report in that form was filled in the presence of the
consumer and signed by all the officers, who were present and the
checking sheet at Exh.21 was prepared. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness
has stated that a number of meters were checked on that day and
no independent panch witnesses were present. No Meter Inspector
was also present and while they had checked the meter no MRI
test or accurate test was done. The meter that was presented did
not have the seal of MGVCL and he does not know who had
removed the meter and who had sealed the meter and where it
was placed before bringing it to the laboratory. That he does not
know the condition of the meter when it was removed from the
place and he has not stated in his statement before the police that
the body seals were resealed or that the male female seal data was
scratched and refitted with the solution. The checking sheet report
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
was prepared by the juniors and he did not call the consumer at
the time of the testing of the meter. There is no documentary
evidence to show that the person who was present was in fact the
consumer of electricity.
8.5. The prosecution has examined PW-7 Ramsinghbhai
Manjibhai Taviyad at Exh.23 and the witness was working as a
Meter Tester on 08.04.2008. The witness has stated that he had
gone for checking at Baska village at the place of the accused and
the meter was found suspicious and they had opened the meter
and found the body seal suspicious and the checking sheet
produced at Exh.19 was prepared. During the cross-examination
by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that
there were no independent panch witnesses and no accurate test
or MRI test was performed at the spot.
8.6. The prosecution has examined PW-8 Vijendra
Nalinbhai Patel at Exh.24 and the witness has stated that the meter
was checked by D.H.Choudhury on 08.04.2008 and a remark was
made that the seals were suspicious and the meter should be
seized and brought to the laboratory for further testing. On
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
15.04.2008, the meter was seized by Deputy Engineer K.B.Garg and
it was packed in a paper and a paper seal was kept with the
signature of Deputy Engineer K.B.Garg and a signature of the
representative of the consumer was also affixed. The meter was
deposited in store of the office Halol Rural and the meter was
brought to the Halol Laboratory on 24.06.2008, where in the
presence of V.D.Taviyad, D.V.Vyas, D.M.Patel, Senior Technician
Tadvi and the consumer, the paper seal was opened and they
found that the MMB seal was tampered. Some adhesive substance
was applied and all the body seal were tampered with. The main
side Y-phase wire was scratched and the meter was packed in a
box and given back to him. The bill of the theft of electricity was
given and the witness has identified the document produced at
Exh.21. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for
the accused, the witness has stated that when he had taken the
meter from his office to the laboratory, he does not know the
condition in which the meter was kept.
8.7. PW-9 Vidyaben, Dhanjibhai Parmar examined at
Exh.26 was working as the P.S.O. at MGVCL Police Station when
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
the complaint of the complainant was sent and she had registered
the complaint.
8.8. PW-10 Kesarisinh Rayjibhai Patel examined at Exh.28
is the Investigating Officer, who has stated that he had taken over
the investigation of MGVCL Police Station I-CR No.1110 of 2008
from A.S.I. Girvatsinh and as there was enough evidence against
the accused, he had filed the charge sheet. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness
has stated that he has not drawn any panchnama of the meter and
had not sent the meter for inspection at any laboratory. The arrest
panchnama of the accused is produced at Exh.29.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, as per the complaint of the complainant produced at
Exh.7, the accused had Consumer No. 07307/10451/2 and this
electricity connection was checked on 08/04/2008. As per the
document produced at Exh.12, the meter of the accused for
Consumer No. 07307/10451/2 was taken by MGVCL, Halol Sub
Division on 15.05.2008 and as per the Checking Sheet produced at
Exh.19, the meter was found to be tampered. The meter was tested
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
in the Meter Testing Laboratory, Halol, on 24.06.2008 and the
Meter Testing report is produced at Exh.20, wherein, it was found
that the meter was tampered. The bill of theft of electricity, which
was given to the accused, which is produced at Exh.9 shows the
meter number as 07358/00149/4 and the date of the inspection of
the meter is shown as 17.06.2008 and the bill mentions that theft of
electricity Rs.2,42,969.20/- has been committed by the accused. In
light of these facts, the contradictory evidence regarding the
consumer number, which as per the complaint at Exh.7, the
removal of the meter by the officers of MGVCL vide the document
at Exh.12, the Checking Sheet at Exh.19 as also the Meter Testing
Report at Exh.21 for Consumer Number 07307/10451/2, which is
the actual number of the consumer of the accused but the notice at
Exh.8 and the bill at Exh.9 are for Consumer No. 07358/00149/4
and there is variation in the date of testing of meter i.e. 17.06.2008.
Moreover, in the evidence on record, the connection was checked
on 08.04.2008 and a paper seal was affixed on the meter and the
meter was taken on 15.04.2008 and it was kept in the office, and
thereafter, the meter was tested in the laboratory on 24.06.2008.
There is no evidence as to whether the meter was properly sealed
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
as no sealing of the meter or seizing of the meter was done in the
presence of independent witnesses and there is no iota of evidence
regarding the condition in which regarding the condition in which
the meter was kept and the place where it was presented. The
evidence that has emerged is that there was a paper seal with the
signature of the complainant, Deputy Engineer Kiranbhai
Balchandrabhai Garg, but there is no evidence as to how and
where the meter was preserved and in view of the major
contradictions in the evidence produced by the prosecution
regarding the Consumer Number and date of testing of the meter
and no explanation as to how the bill could be generated by the
Testing Report on 17.06.2008 when the meter was tested on
29.06.2008 the evidence of the prosecution is doubtful.
10. There are major contradiction in the evidence of the
prosecution and 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
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.
11. The impugned judgment and the order order dated
24.02.2011 in Special (Electricity) Case No.26 of 2010 passed by the
learned Special Judge and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District
Panchmahal at Godhra 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
