[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Ratubha Bechubha Parmar on 29 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Reserved On : 16/04/2026
Pronounced On : 29/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 219 of 2016
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RATUBHA BECHUBHA PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. SHRUTI PATHAK, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. DEVENDRA G RANA(6997) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.10.2015, passed by
the learned Special Judge and 3
rd
Additional Session Judge,
Jamnagar in Special (GEB) Case No.506/2014, for the offences
punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act,
2003, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this
appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short, "the Code").
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial
before the lower Court is that the case pertains to an
inspection conducted on 25.04.2012 at Digvijay Plot, Jamnagar
by Mr. A.J. Dave, Deputy Engineer, along with his team.
During the inspection, it was found that the respondent,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
owner of Raviraj Electronic and Atul Auto, had committed
theft of electricity by tampering with the M.M.B. seal and
bypassing the meter using a wire. It was alleged that the
respondent had illegally consumed electricity amounting to
3.5385 kilowatt. Consequently, a supplementary bill of Rs.
1,54,263.18 was issued by the electricity company, which
remained unpaid and therefore, the complaint was filed
against the respondent-accused.
3. After usual investigation, sufficient prima facie
evidence was found against the accused person/s and
therefore charge-sheet was filed in the competent criminal
Court. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s
was exclusively triable by the Special Court, the learned
Magistrate committed the case to the Special Court where it
came to be registered as Special (GEB) Case No.506 of 2014.
The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The
accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution
has examined the witnesses and also produced 7 oral
evidence and 17 documentary evidence before the trial Court,
which are described in the impugned judgment as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Oral Evidences
Exh.
No. Name of Witness Role
No.
Amrutlal Amarshibhai
Chhatrola
Panch Witness (Independent
Witness)
Sahdevsinh Pravinsinh Panch Witness (Independent
Chauhan Witness)
Ashokkumar Jerambhai
Dave
Kamlesh Kishorchandra
5 P.S.O. (Police Station Officer) 23
Raval
Rameshbhai Vashrambhai
Rathod
7 Bhimsinh Udesinh Jadeja Investigating Officer 28
Documentary Evidences
Type of
No. Description of Document Exh. No.
Copy
2 Supplementary Bill issued to the Accused True Copy 9
4 Letter seeking permission to file a complaint True Copy 11
6 Original Complaint of the Complainant Original 13
Original Panchnama of the scene of electricity
theft
True copy of the Site Rojkam (Daily
proceedings/log)
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Type of
No. Description of Document Exh. No.
Copy
11 Entry from Station Diary (Page No. 64) True Copy 24
Outward letter by P.S.O. handing over case
papers to Head Constable Shri Jadeja
13 Copy of F.I.R. (First Information Report) Copy 26
Muddamal Rojkam (Property/Evidence log) by
I.O.
Property Tax bill from Jamnagar Municipal
Corporation
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis
of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial
Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which they
were charged, by holding that the prosecution has failed to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for the appellant - State has
pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court
through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before
the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial
Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and
perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in
acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the
contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and
ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the
accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that
the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the
conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It
is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen
that the evidence produced on record is reliable and
believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused had committed an offence in question. It is,
therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by
appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.
7. As against that, learned advocate for the
respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by
the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned
trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the
accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal
by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by
the learned trial Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties and also gone through
the oral and documentary evidence, independently and
dispassionately, and considering the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with
the Court:
8.1. As per the complaint produced at Exhibit-13, on
25-04-2012, the Deputy Engineer of Rajkot City Division No.
2, A.J. Dave, along with Lineman R.V. Rathod, carried out
an inspection at the premises of Raviraj Electronics and Atul
Auto situated at Digvijay Plot, Jamnagar. During the
inspection, it was found that despite being registered
consumers of the electricity company for commercial purposes,
the accused had tampered with the MMB seal and directly
connected the phase to the board. Further, by using yellow-
coloured twin-core wires, a direct connection was given to the
switch in the shop, thereby preventing the meter from
recording consumption. In this manner, the accused was
found to have dishonestly abstracted electrical energy by
connecting a load of 3.585 kilowatts. On the basis of the said
inspection, the Deputy Engineer of the Industrial Sub-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
Division, Jamnagar, prepared a supplementary bill for theft of
electricity amounting to Rs. 1,54,263.18/-, and forwarded the
same to the accused. As the said amount remained unpaid,
the Deputy Engineer, Amrutlal Amarsibhai Chhatrola, lodged
a complaint before the Police Station on 01-02-2013 on behalf
of the Electricity Board.
8.2. P.W-1, Amrutlal Amarsibhai Chhatrola, in his
deposition at Exhibit-7, had stated that on 25-04-2012, he
was present on duty near the place of office and at that
time, Deputy Engineer A.J. Dave, Lineman Rathod and other
staff members were carrying out checking. During the course
of checking at the shop of Ratubha Parmar, it was found
that the consumer had taken direct power supply from the
main service line. Pursuant to the said checking, the meter
and service wire were seized from the premises of the
consumer. The checking officer prepared the site rojkam and
filled in the checking sheet at the spot and also prepared a
seizure memo of the articles seized. Thereafter, for the
purpose of assessment, a supplementary bill for theft of
electricity was issued to the consumer. The witness has
identified his signature and seal on the true copy of the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
electricity bill, which is produced at Exhibit-9. Further, a
notice was issued to the accused by the Electricity Board for
payment of the said bill, and the witness has also identified
his signature on the said notice, which is produced at
Exhibit-10. Despite service of the notice, the accused failed to
pay the amount of the supplementary bill. Therefore,
permission was sought from the Executive Engineer to
initiate criminal proceedings by lodging a complaint. The
witness has identified his signature and designation on the
said application seeking permission, which is produced at
Exhibit-11. Thereafter, sanction/permission was granted by the
Executive Engineer, and the same is produced at Exhibit-12.
8.3. In the cross-examination, the said witness admitted
that he had not personally visited the spot and, therefore, he
is not in a position to depose about the actual condition
prevailing at the site. He has further admitted that the
rojkam of site was not prepared in his presence. It is also
admitted that the police did not record his statement. The
witness has further admitted that no muddammal was
forwarded along with the complaint and that no panchnama
regarding seizure of the muddammal was prepared by him.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
He has also admitted that no documentary evidence regarding
the ownership or possession of the premises where the
checking was carried out has been produced along with the
complaint. Thus, as the complainant had not visited the place
of incident, he cannot have any personal knowledge of the
condition at the site. It is further evident that the complaint
came to be filed after a delay of about nine months from the
date of the incident, and no explanation for such delay has
been provided either in the complaint or in the deposition of
the said witness. Moreover, no documentary evidence has
been produced to establish that the shop in question was in
possession of the accused at the time of the alleged raid.
8.4. P.W-4 Ashok Kumar Dave (Exh-18) has deposed
that on 25-04-2012, while carrying out checking at Digvijay
Plot, Jamnagar along with Lineman R.V. Rathod, he
inspected the shop of consumer Ratubha V. Parmar (Raviraj
Electronics). During inspection, the plastic seal of the meter
box was found tampered. On further checking, it was noticed
that the main service phase and neutral wires were cut and
a yellow twin-core wire was connected, thereby bypassing the
meter and supplying electricity directly to three shops,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
preventing recording of consumption. An unauthorized load of
3.585 KW was found connected. The checking sheet and site
rojkam were prepared in presence of the consumer's
representative, Narendrasinh and the tampered meter and
wire were seized and sealed.
8.5. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that no
prior permission for checking was obtained from higher
authority and that the muddammal was not seized in
presence of panch witnesses. He further admitted that no
statements from neighbouring witnesses were recorded and no
documentary evidence regarding ownership or possession of
the premises by the accused was collected. The witness also
admitted that no proof of his appointment/authorization by
the Government was produced. He stated that he cannot
confirm that the premises belonged to the accused.
8.6. P.W-6 Rameshbhai Rathod (Exh-27), in his
examination-in-chief, has deposed that on 25-04-2012, while
serving in the I.C. Squad, he carried out checking at the
shop of Ratuba in Panakhan Udyognagar, Ward No. 49, and
found theft of electricity. He identified his signature as well
as that of Narendra on the checking report (Exh-19) and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
site rojkam (Exh-20). In cross-examination, the witness stated
that he does not clearly remember whether any independent
persons, apart from the checking staff, were present at the
time of checking. Though he stated that a panchnama of
seizure was prepared and photographs were taken at the site,
no such panchnama or photographs have been produced by
the prosecution. It is further admitted that the checking
report does not mention the time of commencement or
completion of checking, no statements of neighbouring
witnesses were recorded, and no documentary proof regarding
ownership of the premises was collected.
8.7. Panch witness Soyab Makwana (P.W-2, Exh-14)
and Panch witness Sahadevsingh Chauhan (P.W-3, Exh-16)
were examined on oath in respect of the panchnama of the
place of offence produced at Exhibit 15. Both the panch
witnesses have not supported the contents of the said
panchnama. Hence, they were declared hostile.
8.8 P.W-5, P.S.O. Kamlesh Kishorchandra Rawal (Exh-
23), deposed that on 02-03-2013, while he was on duty at
Rajkot GEB Police Station, a written complaint was received
from the Engineer of GIDC Sub-Division, Jamnagar. He
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
registered the complaint, made an entry in the station diary,
and forwarded the papers of the offence for investigation to
Head Constable B.U. Jadeja. He has identified his signature
on the relevant documents produced at Exhibit-25. In cross-
examination, the witness stated that except registering the
complaint, he had not carried out any further investigation.
Thus, his role is limited to registration of the offence and
forwarding it for investigation.
8.9. P.W.7 B.U. Jadeja (Exh-28), the Investigating
Officer, has deposed that after registration of the offence,
P.S.O. K.K. Rawal entrusted him case papers for further
investigation. He recorded statements of witnesses, carried out
rojkam at the office of the Deputy Engineer, and prepared
the panchnama of the place of offence (Exh-15), identifying
his signature as well as those of the panchas. He has also
produced documents of the accused, namely election card,
ration card, and property tax receipts (Exh's-30, 31, 32). In
cross-examination, the witness admitted that no independent
witnesses were examined and that he was not present at the
time of checking; hence, he has no personal knowledge of the
actual condition at the spot. He further admitted that no
detailed statement of the complainant was recorded. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
evident that the investigation is mainly based on documents
and actions carried out by the checking staff. Though he
prepared the panchnama of the place of offence, both panch
witnesses have not supported the same; therefore, the said
panchnama cannot be said to be duly proved. Moreover, no
statements of independent persons residing near the place of
incident were recorded during investigation.
8.10. Upon appreciation of the evidence of all the
witnesses, it appears that the complaint has been filed after
a delay of about nine months, for which no satisfactory
explanation has been given by the complainant. The
Investigating Officer, B.U. Jadeja, has carried out rojkam
during the course of investigation, which is produced at
Exhibit-29. However, on perusal of the said rojkam, it is
evident that no signatures of panch witnesses are found on
it, thereby affecting its evidentiary value.
8.11. The complainant has failed to produce any
documentary evidence to establish that the shops where the
raid was conducted were in possession of the accused.
Neither the investigation report nor the site rojkam discloses
any details regarding the ownership of the premises where
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
the alleged theft of electricity was taking place. Though the
Investigating Officer has produced property tax receipts in the
name of the accused (Exh-32), the same do not establish that
the premises mentioned therein are the very same premises
where the alleged theft occurred, as no such correlation is
reflected in the checking report (Exh-19) or the site rojkam
(Exh-20). Hence, the Trial Court has rightly held that the
prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
alleged place of theft belonged to or was in possession of the
accused, and that the present respondents are accused of the
offences under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act.
9. Further, learned APP is not in a position to show
any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that
the approach of the Court below is vitiated by some manifest
illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the Court
below has ignored the material evidence on record. In above
view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the
Court below was completely justified in passing impugned
judgment and order.
10. Considering the impugned judgment, the trial
Court has recorded that there was no direct evidence
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
connecting the accused with the incident and there are
contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.
In absence of the direct evidence, it cannot be proved that
the accused are involved in the offence. Further, the motive
of the accused behind the incident is not established. The
trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record
and passed the impugned judgment. The trial Court has
rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence on record.
11. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal
appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the
judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons
assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper.
Such principle is down by the Apex Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC
1417 wherein it is held as under:
"... This court has observed in Girija Nandini
Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1
SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the
duty of the appellate court when it agrees with
the view of the trial court on the evidence to
repeat the narration of the evidence or to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
reiterate the reasons given by the trial court
expression of general agreement with the
reasons given by the Court the decision of
which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
12. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the
reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the
discussion of evidence at length is not necessary.
13. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
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."
14. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of 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 trial
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 trial 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
taken a different view.
15. In the case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka,
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed as under:
"42. From the above decisions, in our
considered view, the following general
principles regarding powers of the 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 Criminal Procedure Code, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
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 emphasise 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 is 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/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
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."
16. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no case is made out to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
17. In view of above facts and circumstances of the
case, on my careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, I
found that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the
findings of fact recorded by learned trial Court and under
the circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly
acquitted the respondents - accused for the elaborate reasons
stated in the impugned judgment and I also endorse the
view/finding of the learned trial Court leading to the
acquittal.
18. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the present Criminal Appeal fails to prove its case
and the same deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/219/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
accordingly. Record & Proceedings be remitted to the
concerned trial Court forthwith.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
ADITYA SINGH
