Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Nathabhai Karabhai Mori on 4 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/128/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 128 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
NATHABHAI KARABHAI MORI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 04/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment
and order dated 10.9.2012 passed by the learned Special
Judge, Khambhaliya in Special (GEB) Case No.141 of 2006 for
the offences under sections 135 of the Indian Electricity Act,
2003 , the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this
appeal as provided under section 378(1)(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short) inter alia
challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of
the respondent accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/128/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2025
undefined
2. The prosecution case is that on 3.1.2004, the respondent
accused in his house (Vadi), with mala fide intention, without
permission, has illegally taken direct electric connection in his
electric line and by illegally using the same during raid,
caught red handed committing theft of electricity. Thereafter,
the complainant lodged the complaint with regard to the
incident before concerned Police Station, which was
registered as II - C.R. No.564 of 2004 for the offences under
sections 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the
complainant, investigating agency recorded statements of the
witnesses, collected relevant evidence and drawn various
Panchnamas and other relevant evidence for the purpose of
proving the offence. After having found material against the
respondent accused, charge-sheet came to be led in the Court
of learned JMFC concerned. As jurisdiction to try the offence
is exclusively lying with Special Court, the offence was
committed to the Special Court concerned as provided under
section 209 of the Code.
4. Upon committal of the case to the Special Electricity
Court framed charge at Exh.22 against the respondent
accused u/s 135 of the Electricity Act for the aforesaid
offence. The respondent accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has
examined various witnesses and also produced various
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/128/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2025
undefined
documentary evidence before the learned Special Court, more
particularly described in para 4 of the impugned judgment
and order.
6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution,
the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances
appearing in the evidence to the respondent accused so as to
obtain his explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the
Code. In the further statement, the respondent accused
denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him
as false and further stated that he is innocent and false case
has been led against him. After hearing both the sides and
after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the
learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent accused of the
offences, for which he was tried, as the prosecution failed to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
7. I have heard learned APP appearing for the applicant
State and have minutely examined oral as well as
documentary evidence led during trial and referred by learned
APP during the course of hearing.
8. To overturn impugned judgment and order, learned APP
would submit that the learned Special Court erred in holding
that the prosecution has failed to make out the case. He would
further submit that in order to prove the charges levelled
against the accused, the prosecution had examined various
witnesses and produced various documentary evidence.
However, the learned Special Court has acquitted the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/128/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2025
undefined
respondent accused without properly appreciating oral and
documentary evidence and thereby, has committed gross
error. He would further submit that the prosecution had
examined the complainant as well as the investigating officer
and going through their cross-examination, nothing fruitful in
favour of the accused was found and yet the learned Special
Court has not considered the deposition and thereby, has
committed serious error.
8.1 Learned APP would further submit that the complainant
and the member of the raiding party are the Government
officers and they have no personal grudge or enmity with the
accused. Therefore, their deposition before the learned
Special Court was free from bias and independent, but the
learned Special Court overlooked all these depositions and
acquitted the accused on hyper technical consideration,
thereby committed error. He would further submit that going
through the documentary evidence, it appears that the
accused by taking direct electric connection from the
electricity line was illegally extracting the electricity and
thereby, committed theft u/s 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
This fact is established from the spot panchnama prepared by
the authorized officer of the Electricity Board and supported
by the supplementary bill as well as calculation sheet, which
was not forcefully challenged by the either side. In that facts
and circumstances, he would further submit that the learned
Special Court has erred in acquitting the accused and as such,
he would submit to allow this appeal and set aside the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/128/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2025
undefined
impugned judgment and to convict the accused for the
offences, for which charge was levelled against him.
8.2 Though served, none appears for the respondent accused.
9. Before examining the merits of the arguments canvassed
by learned APP in background of the facts of the case, it is
apposite to refer settled principles of law on scope of
interference in acquittal appeal.
10. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana,
reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as
under:
"The powers of the High Court in an appeal from
order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach
its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379,
Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the
order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is
desirable that the High Court should give proper
weight and consideration to the view of the Trial
Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused,
the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt
and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a
finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the
advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that
if the main grounds on which the lower Court has
based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable
and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and
effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court
should not disturb the order of acquittal."
11. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/128/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2025
undefined
Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of
Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while
dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by
the learned Special Court is found to be perverse, the
acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High
Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat
circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned Special
Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay
its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it
had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
12. Keeping in mind the above proposition of law and the
scope of interference in the acquittal appeal on appreciating
the facts of the case, it transpires that even as per the case of
the prosecution, after surprise checking took place, the
FIR/complaint was not lodged within 24 hours of checking or
disconnection, which is otherwise mandatory as per provisio
of section 135(1A) of the Electricity Act. Thus, the complaint
is registered belatedly and no explanation has been offered by
the prosecution during the trial. Moreover, it is not
established that the person, who has lodged the
FIR/complaint, had been authorized by the Electricity
Board/Company to lodge the FIR/complaint on behalf of the
Electricity Board. The learned Special Court noted that
absence of authorization to file complaint breached provisions
of sections 50 and 151 of the Electricity Act. Learned APP
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/128/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2025
undefined
failed to point out any other interpretation. It also appears
that no panchnama is prepared to recover the muddamal, no
videography or photographs of the surprise checking is done.
Close look at the evidence indicates that at the alleged
surprise checking to the spot/premises said to have been
belonged to the accused was not done in presence of any
independent person. The checking report itself indicates no
involvement of any independent person. The checking report
bears signature of the officer from the Electricity Board/
Company. No explanation is coming out from the deposition of
the complainant or the employees part of the checking squad
that why independent person has not been made part of the
surprise checking or drawing the spot report. Learned Special
Court having taken note of this anomaly in the prosecution
evidence after referring various authorities under the
pronouncement of this Court as we as the Hon'ble Apex Court,
reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to
make out a case and to establish the charge levelled against
the accused. The impugned judgment and order being fairly
reasoned does not required to be interfered with. Learned
APP has failed to point out any other point or evidence, which
favours the case of the prosecution.
13. It can be noticed that cardinal principles of criminal
jurisprudence behold that in an acquittal appeal, even if two
view is possible, the view taken by the learned trial Court
cannot be substituted by reversing the acquittal into the
conviction unless finding of the learned trial Court found to be
perverse, or could to have been said contrary to the material
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/128/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2025
undefined
on record or demonstrably wrong or unsustainable and
manifestly erroneous [See: Ramesh Babulal Doshi V. State
of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225].
14. In the instant case, learned APP could not able to point
out that how the finding recorded by the learned Special
Court is patently illegal, perverse or contrary to the material
on record or against the settled principles of law or is
palpably wrong or manifestly erroneous. Worth to note that
the presumption of innocence in a criminal trial operates in
favour of the accused till he found guilty. The presumption
would be doubled in a case where accused is acquitted after
full-fledge trial from the charges levelled against him.
15. The reasons stated herein above indicate that no case is
made out by the appellant State warranting interference with
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
16. Resultantly, present appeal fails and same deserves to
be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
17. Bail bond, if any, taken during the pendency of appeal, is
cancelled.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
