Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Anopsing @ Anubha Gagaji Pingal on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1687 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ANOPSING @ ANUBHA GAGAJI PINGAL
==========================================================
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 : 07/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned
Special Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the
learned Trial Court") in Special (GEB) Case No. 13/2009 on
26.07.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted
the respondent for the offence punishable under Section
135 of The Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as "the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
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 On 16.12.2004, the officers of the GEB visited the
residence of the accused situated in village Meghpar, Taluka
Lalpur, District Jamnagar and found that the accused had
directly connected a red color wire to the electricity pole of
the low tension line and had taken it to his residence and
was directly consuming a total load of 1.375 watts of
electricity illegally and had in all committed theft of
electricity of Rs. 57,646.49/- paisa. The complaint was filed
by Hitesh Lakshmidas Hindocha, Deputy Engineer GEB
Kalawad Subdivision at the GEB Police Station Rajkot under
Section 135 of the Electricity Act which came to be
registered as GEB Police Station II - C.R. No. 817 of 2005.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
First Class, Lalpur and as the said offences against the
accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,
the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Jamnagar as
per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and the case was registered as Special (GEB)
Case No. 13/2009.
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. 4 was framed against the
accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exh. 5, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken
on record.
2.4 The prosecution examined 4 witnesses and produced 6
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
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 him.
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,
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
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 remained
present 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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
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
was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate
Court to interfere in the same.
8. To prove the charge against the accused, the
prosecution has examined PW1 - Hitesh Laxmidas
Hindocha at Exh. 10 and the witness is the complainant
who has produced the calculation sheet at Exh. 11 and the
bill of theft of electricity at Exh. 12. The witness has stated
that on 16.12.2004, the Kalawad Subdivision Deputy
Engineer H.B. Rangwani and other members of the line
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
staff had gone for checking at the Meghpar village of Lalpur
Taluka and had checked the house of the accused and
found that he was committing a theft of electricity with a
five meter red colour cable. The procedure was done at the
spot and the supplementary bill of theft of electricity was
given which was not paid and he had filed the complaint
which is produced at Exh. 13. During the cross-
examination the witness has admitted that the checking
was done on 16.12.2004 and the complaint was filed on
04.02.2005 and there is no explanation for the delay in
filing the complaint. The witness has also admitted that he
did not take the permission of any authority before filing
the complaint and did not inform the Investigating Officer
to seize the muddamal. No panchnama was drawn in the
presence of any independent panch witnesses and no
documents to show that the place where the theft of
electricity had taken place, was in the ownership or
possession of the accused, were seized. The government has
formed a squad for checking of theft of electricity but the
person who had gone for checking was not a member of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
checking squad. The number of the electricity pole has not
been mentioned in any of the documents and at the time of
seizing the muddamal wire, no panchnama was drawn in
the presence of independent panch witnesses.
8.1 PW2 - Himmatlal Balubhai Rangani examined at Exh.
14 was working as the Deputy Engineer of PGVCL, Kalawad
Subdivision and on 16.12.2004 he had checked the
electricity connection at the residence of the accused and
found theft of electricity being taken place. The victim has
produced the rojkam at Exh. 15 and the checking sheet at
Exh. 16. In the cross examination the witness has admitted
that no authorization for checking was given by any
authority and no panchnama for seizure of the muddamaal
was done in the presence of any independent persons. He
was not authorized in writing to go for checking and has
not recorded the statements of any neighbors where the
checking had taken place. Moreover, they did not seize any
documents showing that the place where the electricity was
checked was in the possession or ownership of the accused.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
The witness has admitted that the Gujarat Government has
not authorized him to go for checking.
8.2 PW3 - Prahladray Govindram Valera examined at Exh.
17 is the PSO who has registered the complaint and has
produced the FIR at Exh. 18.
8.3 PW4 - Ranjitsing Kuldipsinh Lubana examined at
Exh. 21 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. In the
cross examination the witness has admitted that he has not
seized any muddamaal and has not drawn any panchnama
of the place of offence and has not recorded the statements
of any independent witnesses. The complainant did not give
any authority that he had received for filing the complaint
and he was not present at the time when the checking had
taken place. There were no documents seized to show that
the place where the theft of electricity had taken place was
in the possession or ownership of the accused.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the electricity connection at the house of the
accused was checked on 16.12.2004 and the complaint was
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
filed on 04.02.2005. There is no explanation for the delay in
filing the complaint and the complainant - PW1 - Hitesh
Lakshmidas Hindocha was not present at the time of the
checking but has merely filed the complaint. Moreover, in
the entire evidence there is no iota of evidence that the
place that was checked belonged to the accused or that he
was the owner or in possession of the place. The place as
per the case of the prosecution was a residential house in
Meghpar village of Lalpur Taluka, District Jamnagar and
there may be other residences nearby but no independent
witnesses have been examined to prove that the checking of
electricity had in fact taken place. There is no panchnama
drawn of the seizure of any muddamal and PW2 -
Himmatlal Balubhai Rangani has stated that they had
seized the red colour wire but no such wire has been
produced before the learned Trial Court. PW4 - Ranjitsing
Kuldipsinh Lubana - the Investigating Officer has
categorically stated that he has not seized any muddamal
and has not drawn any panchnama of the place of offence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
and there was no permission given to the complainant to
file the complaint.
10. In view of the settled position of law, 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/1687/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar in Special
(GEB) Case No. 13/2009 on 26.07.2012, 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)
VASIM S. SAIYED
