Gujarat High Court
Banabhai Ramsangbhai Revar vs State Of Gujarat on 8 October, 2025
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1066 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
― √
==========================================================
BANABHAI RAMSANGBHAI REVAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SATYEN B RAWAL(1630) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MONALI BHATT, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 08/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Challenge is given to the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed on 7.8.2007 by
the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court,
Surendranagar in Special Electricity Case no.48
of 2007, whereby the appellant - accused came to
be convicted under Section 135 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to
as "the Act") and sentenced for a period of one
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
year rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.90,000/-, in failure of payment of fine,
further six months simple imprisonment.
1.1 Fine amount was ordered to be paid to PGVCL. The
benefit of set off had been granted by the
impugned judgment.
2. Learned advocate Mr. Satyen Rawal submitted that
the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence is bad in law and is contrary to the
evidence on record. The learned Trial Court
Judge has wrongly placed burden on the accused
ignoring the fact that reliable proof regarding
the commission of offence has not been proved by
the witnesses. Referring to the checking sheet
and the Rojnama, Advocate Mr. Rawal submitted
that actual place of offence which is
agricultural land has not been proved. The
checking sheet Exh.14 does not reflect the true
facts, where on one hand, it has been stated
that the people have run away from the place
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
with the alleged starter and fuse board, while
on the other hand, it has been recorded that the
appellant has denied to put his signature on the
checking sheet. Advocate Mr. Rawal submitted
that Exh.14 is without any signature of the
Divisional Officer, nor any details with regard
to bill and the entry number, date and place has
been recorded, nor any further details could be
noted. Advocate Mr. Rawal submitted that the
allegation has been made that illegal
electricity line was extended from the low
pressure line above the land of Chandrikaben
Jayantilal, while the documentary evidence in
the form of Rojkam does not reflect the
adjoining land of Chandrikaben Jayantilal. The
Rojkam Exh.15 on the eastern direction shows
Surendranagar - Rajkot highway road and on the
western side, outskirts of Bhagavo-Khamisana
Village. The deposition of the witnesses, more
particularly, PW2 who states that he had visited
the place does not corroborate the details
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
written in the checking list Exh.14, nor the
Rojnama Exh.15 supports the testimony.
2.1 Advocate Mr. Rawal submitted that identity of
the accused becomes questionable and further
submitted that there has been delay of about two
months in filing of the FIR and no reason has
been assigned for such inordinate delay, where
the provision under Section 135 of the Act
mandates registration of the complaint within
twenty four hours. Advocate Mr. Rawal submitted
that contradictions in the evidence are very
glaring, inspite of that, the learned Judge had
passed judgment and order of conviction and
sentence only on the presumption and assertion
without any application of mind when evidence
clearly shows that there is no corroboration of
the ocular evidence to that of the documentary
evidence, which the witnesses had proposed to
prove. The observation of the learned Judge of
non-cooperation of the accused is unsupported
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
observation, where unnecessary burden has been
laid down on the accused to prove that he has
not committed the theft of electricity. Advocate
Mr. Rawal referring to the deposition of the
witnesses as well as the documentary evidence
more specifically Exhs.14 and 15 could submit
that the trial has been wrongly proceeded
against the accused and the evidence on record
are vague and non-corroborative and do not
inspire truth for the conviction to follow and
thus, urged that the learned Trial Court has
committed error in convicting the accused and
made a prayer to set aside the conviction and
sentence.
3. Per contra, Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP,
having placed reliance on the checking list
Exh.14 submitted that the accused is an
agricultural non-customer and the fact is
reflected in the document when checking was done
on 19.12.2003 and on the place and prior to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
officers reaching the agricultural land, the
persons working there on the filed had run away
with the starter and fuse board, which were
installed unauthorisedly and illegally for the
theft of electricity. The accused had denied to
sign the checking sheet and hence, such
endorsement has been made on the document. The
Inspecting Officer had seized the wire which was
used for the theft. Ms. Bhatt has referred to
the complainant along with the complaint Exh.12
and the deposition of PW2 - Inspector who had
visited the place and submitted that the
deposition of PW2 being an eye-witness to the
cause is required to be believed and the learned
Judge has on placing reliance on the evidence of
the witnesses along with the documentary
evidence which supports the testimony of PW2 as
well as the complaint of PW1, has convicted the
accused, which is just and proper and stated
that the sentence is proportionate and hence,
submitted to uphold the conviction.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
4. The complainant - PW1 - Bharatkumar Shrimali who
was the Deputy Engineer at Surendranagar Rural
Sub-Division of PGVCL (GEB) states of the
incident of 19.12.2003 (19.12.2005 sic) the
jurisdictional area under his control was
Shekhpar Village and in the outskirts of
Shekhpar Village, the complainant stated that
the accused has his agricultural land, which is
on the eastern side of the land of Chandrikaben
Jayantibhai. The complainant stated that from
the low pressure electric supply, tampering was
done and 750 mtrs. long light blue, red and
yellow colour wires were used for illegal
connection and the accused had used submersible
motor on the well of his agricultural land and
the checking officer has noted the said fact in
his checking sheet and the Rojnama. The
complainant states that the accused were not
found and therefore, they had refused to sign
the checking sheet and the Rojkam. Advocate Mr.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
Rawal submitted that the complainant refers to
the accused in polarity and the deposition is
recorded as if there were more than one accused
who were on the place of offence refusing to
sign the checking list and the Rojnama. The
complainant stated that there was use of 5 HP
motor and a theft of Rs.30,000/-. The complaint
Exh.12 was given on 30.12.2005 under Section 135
of the Act. In the cross-examination, it has
been recorded that the witness - complainant was
not present on the day at the time of checking.
The cross-examination suggests that earlier too,
some electricity theft had come to his knowledge
and the complainant states that he had taken
certain steps. However, nothing has been brought
on record on connecting this accused with that
earlier complaint, nor any documentary evidence
has been produced to prove the steps taken by
the complainant witness and hence, there is no
corroboration of his evidence of earlier theft
on record. The complainant also in the cross-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
examination stated that earlier before this case
too, he had filed case of electricity theft and
affirmed that he has not produced any document.
It is strange to note that the officer who is
authorized to file a complaint under Section 135
of the Act is not aware of the provisions of
Section 135 of the Act since the provision makes
specific penal action to be followed in case of
first, second or subsequent acts and if earlier
illegal act of the accused proved, then
stringent penal provisions follow in case of
conviction. The non-production of the earlier
documents as alleged and stated by the
complainant in the cross-examination would
rather prove fatal for the prosecution case,
where the complainant as a responsible officer
of GEB had not thought it fit to even produce
the documents, which he states to have been in
his knowledge and states that it was filed by
him. The complaint Exh.12 appears to have been
written on 20.12.2003. The complaint specifies
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
that the agricultural land of the accused is on
the eastern side of the field of Chandrikaben
Manilal and the illegal connection was from the
connection of Chandrikaben's field. The
complainant states that from the low pressure
electricity pole, the wire was extended to the
land of the ownership of the accused. The wire
was light blue, black and yellow of 750 mtrs.
length and illegal and unauthorized use was done
on the well, which was in the field of the
accused. The installation was alleged to be of 5
HP motor. The complainant states that no
connection was given from the GEB on the
agricultural land of the accused, inspite of
that, as alleged, the unauthorized electricity
usage was found on the place and because of
tampering in the electricity supply on the low
pressure line of the GEB, the complainant found
to be a criminal offence and therefore, had
given complaint at Exh.12. The Investigating
Officer - PW4 - Hussainbhai Isakbhai Dal has
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
stated that the complaint was registered by PW3
- Mohammadrafik Reshamohammad Solanki as the PSO
in the GEB Police Station, Bhavnagar and the
investigation was handed over to him. The
registration of the complaint was on 22.2.2003.
The witness, as Investigating Officer, had
recorded the statements on 27.2.2004 and had
arrested the accused on 18.5.2005. The
Investigating Officer stated that he has not
visited the place of raid and has affirmed that
there are many agricultural lands surrounding
the alleged place of offence. The Investigating
Officer's testimony records that he has not
collected any supporting material to verify the
fact whether electricity connection was in force
at the time of raid and that he had not seized
any Muddamal.
5. The vital evidence as could be considered would
be of PW2 - Dhimant Bhikhabhai Parmar who states
that he had gone along with M.B. Patel on
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
19.12.2004 under the instructions of the
superior officer. He was working as a Junior
Engineer along with other staff members,
however, he could not name them.
6. The deposition of PW2 records that they had
electricity checking of the field of Banabhai
Ramsangbhai and according to the witnesses,
there was no legal electricity connection from
the GEB and it is alleged that from the low
pressure line near the field of Chandrikaben
Manilal, which was on the eastern side of the
agricultural land of the accused, 750 mtr. long
line was joined, illegal connection was given of
5 HP motor, which was installed on the well and
that motor was found to be in use. The witnesses
in the deposition stated that since the accused
Banabhai Ramsangbhai was present there, the wire
was seized and checking sheet was prepared.
7. The testimony in examination-in-chief, thus,
suggests that the accused was present over there
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
and at that time, they had found the motor
installed on the well, which was of 5 HP. The
illegal connection was recorded of 750 mtr. long
wire line. The fact which has been recorded in
Exh.14 has not been deposed by PW2 of the people
running away from the field with the starter and
fuse board. The checking sheet Exh.14 has been
produced on record, where the witness stated
that the accused failed to put his signature on
the checking sheet as he refused to do so. He
does not remember whether any other persons were
present there apart from the accused Banabhai.
This statement of the witness PW2 does not find
corroboration from the facts noted in Exh.14,
the checking list. The witness though was a
Checking Inspector has not stated that prior to
their reaching the place, the people working on
the field of Banabhai had taken away starter and
fuse board. The wire noted to have been seized
in Exh.14 and even stated in the deposition of
being seized has not been made part of Muddamal
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
during the trial, though the witness states that
the checking sheet Rojkam and the seized wires
were given to the complainant, it has not been
made the part of the trial. The deposition of
PW2 also records the use of 5 HP motor on the
well. Such motor has not been seized by the
witnesses to prove unauthorized use of
electricity. The relevant fact which becomes
noticeable is that when the accused had denied
to put the signature on the checking sheet to
prove the place of offence, the witness PW2
could have recorded the statement of
Chandrikaben or instead, could have taken the
signature of Chandrikaben on the checking list
Exh.14 to prove their inspection on 19.12.2003
on the place alleged to be agricultural land of
the accused. The witness has affirmed that he
has not taken any documents to show the
ownership of the accused to the field. Nothing
has been recorded of the number assigned to the
electric pole, which has been alleged to be used
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
for illegal tapping of the electricity. PW2 has
admitted that when they had gone for the
checking, it was an agricultural area and there
were many fields and farms and even many people
were working in the field. The witness admitted
that he has not seized the motor and has also
affirmed that the wires, which has been shown to
have been seized, are easily available in the
market.
8. Section 135 of the Act carries stringent
provisions for penalty. It mandates the
complaint to be compulsorily filed within twenty
four hours of such disconnection and during the
search, seizure has to specifically remove all
the devices, instruments, wires and any other
facilitator or article which are found to be
used for unauthorized use of electricity. The
occupant of the place of search or any person on
his behalf has to remain present at the time of
search and a list of all things seized in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
course of such search shall be prepared and
delivered to such occupant or person who shall
sign the list. Here in this case, no such
exercise has been done while it has been
recorded that the accused had refused to sign
the checking list. The seizure list appears to
have not been drawn by the witnesses. Any
attempt to get the signature on such seized list
has not been proved. The burden would shift on
the accused only after such dishonest use,
obstruction or consumption of the electricity is
proved by the officers of the licenses or the
supplier authorized on behalf of the State
Government who have the authority to enter,
inspect, break upon and search any place of
premises in which the officer has the reason to
believe that the electricity has been or is
being used unauthorisedly and for that purpose,
the ownership of the property and the occupant
of the property in possession is also required
to be proved, to establish the direct connection
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
of the accused to those premises, which are
stated to be inspected, searched for the
allegation of dishonest tapping or tampering of
the meters or unauthorized installation of any
apparatus, equipments or wires. Here in the
present case, the prosecution witnesses failed
to prove the instruments and apparatus used for
the alleged illegal unauthorised use of
electricity to be considered as theft of
electricity, though raid was conducted. The raid
conducted on 19.12.2003 could not be proved by
bringing any registers recording the visit on
that alleged date, nor any written order
authorizing raid on 19.12.2003 has been proved,
which was precisely as per the deposition of
PW2, directed to the agricultural field of the
accused.
9. The learned Trial Court Judge has wrongly placed
burden on the accused to prove that there was no
abstraction, consumption or use of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/1066/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/10/2025
undefined
electricity, dishonestly caused by him. Prima
facie, the evidence has not been led to presume
such illegal act of the accused.
10. In the analysis of the evidence made hereinabove
with the observations, this Court is of the
opinion that the learned Trial Court Judge has
committed an error in reaching to the conclusion
to convict the accused.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The
judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 7.8.2007 passed by the learned Special
Judge, Fast Track Court, Surendranagar in
Special Electricity Case no.48 of 2007 is set
aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the
charges. Bail bond discharged. Registry is
directed to send back the record and proceedings
to the concerned Court forthwith.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik
