Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ladhabhai Devshibhai Khant on 7 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1596 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
LADHABHAI DEVSHIBHAI KHANT
==========================================================
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 and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in
Special Electricity Case No. 81/2008 on 29.05.2012,
whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the
respondent for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)
of The Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as "the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1596/2012 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 03.02.2006, the Officers of the Dakshin Gujarat Vij
Company Ltd. (DGVCL) checked the residence of the
accused at Satyamnagar in Kamrej village and found that
the accused was not a consumer of electricity but had
illegally joined a wire to the electricity pole and the low
tension line, and was illegally consuming electricity. The
accused had consumed a total load of 210 watts, 1440 units
of electricity and had committed theft of electricity of Rs.
15,786.90/- paise. The complainant - Velagala China
Venkata Reddy, Deputy Engineer, DGVCL, Kamrej Sub-
Division filed a complaint on 18.02.2006 at the DGVCL
South Zone, Surat Police Station under Section 135 of the
Indian Electricity Act which came to be registered on
23.02.2006 at the DGVCL South Zone, Surat Police Station
II - C.R. No. 198 of 2006.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
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
First Class, Kathor and as the said offences against the
accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,
the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Surat as per
the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure
and the case was registered as Special Electricity Case No.
81/2008.
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. 6 was framed against the
accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exh. 7, 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 8
documentary evidence and after the learned APP filed the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
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
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;
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
(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, 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
(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. 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. In view of the settled principles of law in acquittal
appeals, the evidence in reappreciated and to prove the
charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
PW1 - Kishore Kalidas Parmar at Exh. 8. The witness was
working as a Junior Engineer at DGVCL and he had gone
along with Junior Engineer - S.B. Patel to the Satyamnagar,
Kamrej and had checked the electricity connection at the
house of the accused. They found that the accused was
consuming electricity even though he was not a consumer
of electricity and the bulb, fans, tube lights and other
household electric equipments were being used and there
was no meter at his house. The procedure was done and
thereafter, the complaint was filed by Velagala China
Venkata Reddy, Deputy Engineer, DGVCL, Kamrej Sub-
Division, which is produced at Exh. 11. The witness has
produced the calculation sheet at Exh. 10, the FIR at Exh.
12, the notice of bill at Exh. 13, the statement of the
accused at Exh. 14, the bill of theft of electricity at Exh. 15.
During the cross examination, the witness has stated that
there is a Register maintained about the checking
conducted by the department and the Register also
mentions the names of the persons who had gone for
checking and their signatures is taken. As he has not
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
produced the register and no signatures were taken, he
cannot say whether they had actually gone for checking or
not. The entire procedure was done on the spot by Reddy
Sahib and he cannot say what equipment was used to
commit the theft of electricity. They did not mention at any
place the length or the thickness of the wire and did not
seize any document to show that the accused was in
possession of the place where they had checked.
8.1 PW2 - Sandipbhai Balubhai Patel examined at Exh. 21
was working as a Junior Engineer, DGVCL and he had gone
for checking on the day on 03.02.2006. The witness has
supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that
at the time of the incident they had seized the wire. In the
cross-examination the witness has admitted that he does
not have any document to show that he had gone for
checking and he does not know in whose ownership was
the place where the theft of electricity was taking place.
8.2 PW3 - Jagdishbhai Jayantilal Bhatt examined at Exh.
28 is the PSO who has registered the complaint. In the
cross-examination the witness has admitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
checking was conducted on 03.02.2006 and the complaint
was filed on 23.02.2006 and there was a delay of 20 days in
filing the complaint but there were no reasons mentioned
for the delay in filing of the complaint. The witness has
produced the extract of the Station Diary at Exh. 29.
8.3 PW4 - Nikulsinh Mahipatsinh Chudasama examined
at Exh. 31 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the
procedure undertaken by him during investigation. In the
cross-examination the witness has admitted that no
muddamal was seized by him and no panchnama of the
place of offence was drawn during investigation. The
statements of no independent witnesses were recorded and
there is no evidence to show that he had visited the place of
offence. Moreover, during investigation no document to
show that the accused was the owner of the place where the
theft of electricity has taken place was seized.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, it appears that the complaint produced at Exh.
11 has been filed by Velgala Chinna Venkat Reddy who was
working as the Deputy Engineer, DGVCL, Kamrej Rural
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
Sub-Division but he has not been examined as a witness
before the learned Trial Court and hence the contents of the
complaint have not been proved. Admittedly, the checking
was done on 03.02.2006 and the complaint has been
registered on 20.03.2006 and there is no explanation for
the delay in filing of the complaint. PW1 - Kishor Kalidas
Parmar and PW2 - Sandipbhai Balubhai Patel have both
stated that they had gone for checking the electricity
connections at Kamrej village but there is no evidence that
they were authorized to go and in fact they had gone for
checking the electricity connections and there is no
documentary evidence to show that the accused was the
owner or in occupation of the place where the theft of
electricity has taken place. Both the witnesses have
admitted that they did not seize any documentary evidence
regarding the ownership or the possession of the house and
no muddamal has been produced before the learned Trial
Court. PW2 - Sandip Balubhai Patel has stated that they
had seized the wire but no such wire has been produced
before the learned Trial Court. The Investigating Officer
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
PW4 - Nikulsinh Mahipatsinh Chudasama examined has
admitted that he has not drawn any panchnama of the
place of offence and has not recorded the statements of any
independent witnesses and hence, no independent
witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial
Court, even though as per the case of the prosecution, the
checking of electricity was done in a residential area and
there may be residences nearby but no such independent
person has been examined before the Learned Trial Court.
Moreover, there does not appear to be any permission taken
by the complainant to file the complaint from any superior
authority and there is no iota of evidence that the officers
had checked the place and that the theft of electricity had
in fact taken place.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1596/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/10/2025
undefined
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.
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Special Judge and 2 nd Additional
Sessions Judge, Surat in Special Electricity Case No.
81/2008 on 29.05.2012, 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
