[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Vallabhbhai Virjibhai Virani on 18 March, 2026

                                                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/CR.A/1734/2012                                             CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

                                                                                                                          undefined




                                                                                    Reserved On   : 10/03/2026
                                                                                    Pronounced On : 18/03/2026

                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                              R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1734 of 2012

                       ==========================================================
                                                           STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                                 Versus
                                                      VALLABHBHAI VIRJIBHAI VIRANI
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       RULE SERVED 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 07.07.2012, passed by rd the learned Special Judge and 3 Additional Sessions Judge,

Jamnagar, in Special (GEB) Case No.61 of 2009, for the

offences punishable under Section 135(1) of the Indian

Electricity Act, 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 trial Court is that, on 22.12.2006 or prior thereto,

the accused had, by way of connecting illegal wire connection

from the LT line, made illegal connection at the address

mentioned in the cause-title and was running a flour mill

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1734/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

and thereby committed theft of electricity of Rs.1,59,248=10

ps. Therefore, the complaint was filed.

3. After 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 (G.E.B.) Case No.61 of 2009. 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 5 witnesses and also produced 12 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the

impugned judgment, which are as under :

: Oral Evidence :

                        Sr.No. Name of witness            Post                                   Exh.



                                 Govindbhai               complainant           in    Kalavad

                                 Dholariya                Sub-Division



                                 Anada                    member       of   raiding      party

                                                          in Kalavad Sub-Division






                                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/CR.A/1734/2012                                                     CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

                                                                                                                                 undefined






                                   Ghelabhai Katariya station



                                   Kalubha Vala                   officer     in     Rajkot        GEB

                                                                  police station



                                   Chandubhai                     Dhundhoraji village

                                   Tapariya



                                                      : Documentary Evidence :


                        Sr.No.        Particulars                                                                 Exh.





                                     supplementary bill



                               4     Letter seeking permission for filing complaint                                 15



                                     lodging approval









                                     investigation









                                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                         R/CR.A/1734/2012                                                 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

                                                                                                                             undefined






                                     accused



                                     register for house

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1734/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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. Though served, none appeared for the respondent/s.

8. I have heard the submissions made by the learned

APP for the appellant-State and also gone through the oral

and documentary evidence, independently and dispassionately.

8.1 The prosecution has examined Virjibjhai

Govindbhai Dholariya as P.W.1, vide Exh.11. He has deposed

that on 22.12.2006, he was serving as Deputy Engineer at the Kalavad Sub-Division. He went with the Junior Engineer

and other staff members to raid the flour mill of the accused

and had found that there was theft of electricity by

connecting a service wire from the pole and therefore, the

complaint was filed.

In the cross-examination of the said witness, he

admitted that the electricity theft had taken place on

22.12.2006, whereas the complaint was lodged on 07.07.2007

and there is no reason mentioned for the delay in filing the

complaint. He has admitted that no written permission has

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1734/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

been granted by the Vigilance Department, Vadodara to file a

complaint, nor had he sought such permission; that no

written intimation had been given to the police for the

purpose of taking custody of the seized articles; that no

panchanama had been prepared with regard to the alleged

electricity theft in presence of independent witnesses; that no

documents regarding the ownership of the premises where the

electricity theft was committed were placed along with the

report.

8.2 The prosecution has examined Sanjay Tulsidas

Anada as P.W.2, vide Exh.18. He has deposed that he was

Junior Engineer at the relevant point of time and he went to

check the premises of the accused along with other staff and

found that there was theft of electricity. He has also, in his cross-examination, stated that no written authorization had

been received from the higher authorities for the said

checking; that no panchanama had been prepared in the

presence of panch witnesses for the seizure of the materials

nor had he been given any written intimation regarding the

conduct of the checking proceedings. He also admitted that

the checking officers did not record the statements of the

neighbouring persons present at the site, nor were any

documents or papers regarding the ownership of possession of

the accused's flour mill seized.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1734/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

8.3 The learned Sessions Court has considered the

various provisions of the Act and also the citations of the

Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court and observed that

the complainant had not obtained any authorization as per

Section 151 of the Act; further the muddammal is not

produced in the Court with the chargesheet; that panchanama

for seizure of the muddammal is not produced; that it is not

proved beyond doubt that the accused is the owner or

occupier of the premises; further, it is also not proved that

the accused was the occupier of the premises as per Section

135(3) of the Act at the time of seizure; further it is also

not proved that the yadi was prepared in his presence and

that the accused had signed on the said yadi as occupier;

thus, the mandatory provisions of Section 135(3) of the Act are complied with.

8.4 Further, there is no explanation coming forward as

to why the complaint was filed after such a delay; that the

panchanama of the place of offence is also not prepared nor

any statements of the neighbouring persons are recorded; no

panchanama is prepared for seizure of starter and wire and

it is not proved by examining any independent panchas; no

independent witnesses are examined except the G.E.B.

witnesses. Therefore, the Sessions Court has come to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1734/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case

against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and this Court

does not find any reason to interfere with the same.

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, I am 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1734/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1734/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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."

14. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1734/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1734/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1734/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

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."

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a recent decision, in

the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another V/s

State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC 433, has held in paragraph 24 as under:

"24. It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/1734/2012 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026

undefined

17. 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.

18. 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