[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. vs Shri Abdul Zahid Khan on 15 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4225
1 CRA-650-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 15th OF JANUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 650 of 2017
MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD.
Versus
SHRI ABDUL ZAHID KHAN
Appearance:
Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri L.C. Chourasiya - Advocate for the respondent.
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
complainant/company assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated
21.07.2015 passed in Special Case No.123-(a)/2011 by the Special Judge
(Electricity Act), Bhopal (M.P.) whereby the respondent (hereinafter referred
to as 'the accused') has been acquitted of the offence under Section 135 (1)
(A) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23-4-2011 at 03.10
pm, during a surprise inspection of the accused's quarter number 60/20
Jogipura Barkhedi Bhopal by the inspection team of the complainant
company, it was found that the accused was illegally using 3 bulbs, 3 fans, 2
TVs, 1 fridge, 2 coolers, 1 water pump, 1 AC etc. electrical appliances by
stealing a total of 3635 watts of electricity. During the said inspection, R.K.
Agarwal, Junior Engineer, Hanif Siddiqui, Junior Engineer and Ghazanfar,
Line Helper of the inspection team, while taking action, prepared a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4225
2 CRA-650-2017
Panchnama and Site Inspection Report in front of the accused. When the
accused refused to sign it, a copy of the same was given to the accused.
Thus, the accused was caught stealing electricity by the inspection team of
the complainant company. After calculation, a loss statement was prepared
and on the basis of the loss statement, a provisional assessment was made by
the complainant on which an amount of Rs. 56,748/- was imposed and the
said amount was expected to be paid as per Bill No.40 dated 29.04.2011. The
accused was also given an opportunity to submit his objection, but the
amount imposed was not deposited by the accused. Hence, a complaint has
been filed on behalf of the complainant company for criminal cognizance
against the accused for the offence under section 136 of the Electricity Act,
2003 with a prayer to punish him appropriately.
3. After the case was taken into cognizance, the learned Special
Judge has framed the charge against the accused under Section 135 (1) (a) of
the Electricity Act, 2003. The accused denied the charges and sought a trial.
He defended himself by claiming that he was innocent and had been falsely
implicated. He did not lay the wire and that the house in which the theft was
alleged to have occurred did not belong to him.
4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined
Mohd. Haneef Siddiqui (PW-1); R.K.Agrawal (PW-2); Gajanfar Ali (PW-
3); and Deepti Singh Thakur (PW-4) and placed Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/4(c) the
documents on record. The accused has not examined any witness in his
defence.
5. The learned Trial Court having analyzed and marshalled the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4225
3 CRA-650-2017
testimonies of witnesses and examined the documentary evidence available
on record found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubts and eventually acquitted the accused respondent of the
charge under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act. Hence, this appeal.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the present appellant that
the complainant has got examined four witnesses. They have established the
case of complainant on cogent basis but the learned Trial Court has
erroneously acquitted the present appellant on the ground that the house in
which the electricity theft was found to be occurred, did not belong to
accused while the accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has
stated that House No. 60/20 Jogipura Barkhedi Bhopal was his house and,
therefore, nothing else is required to be proved by the prosecution. It is also
submitted that the learned Trial Court overlooking this evidence on record
has erroneously acquitted the accused. It is, therefore, prayed that the
judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside and the
accused/respondent be convicted for the offence and sentenced
appropriately.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused/respondent has
submitted that the House No.60/20 Jogipura Barkhedi Bhopal did not belong
in any manner to accused. Moreover, he has not committed any theft of
electricity. It is also submitted that no independent witness has been
examined on behalf of the appellant. Signature is not on record on Ex.P/1.
Though as per Ex.P/1 a wire of 15 meter is said to have been seized but that
has not been adduced before the Trial Court in evidence. It is also submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4225
4 CRA-650-2017
that in the attending facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment of
learned Trial Court of acquittal cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. It is
prayed that the appeal filed by the complainant/company deserves to be
dismissed.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. As per the story of prosecution and statement of Mohd. Hanif
Siddiqui (PW-1), R.K. Agrawal (PW-2) and Gajanfar Ali (PW-3) it is
revealed that when beging the employee of the complainant - Board reached
at the house of the respondent/accused, it is found that theft of electricity was
being committed there. Therefore, the spot inspection report (Ex.P/1) was
prepared and statement was taken as Ex.P/2 and the dues has been prepared
as Ex.P/3 . Dipti Singh Thakur (PW-4) has been appointed as Nodal Officer,
who has filed this complaint being empowered for filing such complaint
before the Special Court. However, it is revealed from the record that the
complaint has been filed by Ms Poonam Tumram, in respect of which no
such order of Nodal Officer has been filed on behalf of the complainant.
10. As far as the ownership or possession of House No. 60/20
Jogipura Barkhedi Bhopal is concerned, it is alleged that the house belongs
to accused but accused denied that this house does belong to him. Though in
examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused has mentioned House
No.60/20 with the note that he presently resides at House No.64, Ekta
Chowk, Jogipura, Barkhedi, Bhopal. The complainant or prosecution could
not establish the fact that the house in question belongs to accused. This fact
could have been categorically established by the prosecution by filing the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4225
5 CRA-650-2017
documents in respect of its ownership and possession of the house, which
could have been obtained from Nagar Nigam record or otherwise from the
appropriate authority but omission in this regard is fatal for the prosecution in
this case.
11 . Ex.P/1 report revealed that a wire of black colour having length
of 15 meters has been seized but such seized property has not been put
before the witnesses at the time of examination of such witnesses before the
learned Trial Court. As a important piece of evidence, such property ought to
have been exhibited while examination of witnesses. In this respect, the
citation of Jitendra and another Vs. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 562 is
referable in which Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :
"6. In our view, the view taken by the High Court is unsustainable. In the
trial it was necessary for the prosecution to establish by cogent evidence that
the alleged quantities of charas and ganja were seized from the possession of
the accused. The best evidence would have been the seized materials which
ought to have been produced during the trial and marked as material objects.
There is no explanation for this failure to produce them. Mere oral evidence as
to their features and production of panchnama does not discharge the heavy
burden which lies on the prosecution, particularly where the offence is
punishable with a stringent sentence as under the NDPS Act. In this case, we
notice that panchas have turned hostile so the panchnama is nothing but a
document written by the police officer concerned. The suggestion made by the
defence in the cross-examination is worthy of notice. It was suggested to the
prosecution witnesses that the landlady of the house in collusion with the
police had lodged a false case only for evicting the accused from the house in
which they were living. Finally, we notice that the investigating officer was
also not examined. Against this background, to say that, despite the panch
witnesses having turned hostile, the non-examination of the investigating
officer and non-production of the seized drugs, the conviction under the NDPS
Act can still be sustained, is far-fetched.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants brought to our notice two more facts.
The High Court seems to have relied on a copy of the letter dated 14-8-1999
written by the Superintendent of Police, Datia to the Director, State Forensic
Laboratory, Sagar and placed reliance thereupon, although this was not a
document produced during the trial and proved according to law. The High
Court commented that the prosecution had failed to exhibit the letter during the
trial and that the trial court was not vigilant in this respect. In the absence of
anyone affirming the correctness of the contents of the letter, the High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4225
6 CRA-650-2017
has placed reliance on the contents of the letter merely on the ground that the
said document was mentioned at Serial No. 9 in the charge-sheet, and
presumably its copy must have been supplied to the accused. This is another
lacuna, noticeable in the judgment of the High Court.
The aforesaid judgment has been followed by the Bombay High Court
in the case of Shahaji Mattapattil and others Vs. State of Maharashtra,
2009 SCC OnLine Bom 879.
12. It is pertinent to mention here that no independent witness has
been examined on behalf of the prosecution, which could have been
available at the time of inspection of the house and which could have been
impleaded as witness in this case. No explanation of such omission has been
given by the complainant/prosecution.
13. It is also pertinent to mention here that Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 did
not contain any signature of Iqbal Jehan who was present at the time of
inspection or accused himself. It also could not be established by the
complainant that Iqbal Jehan was the wife or near relative of the accused.
14. It is also pertinent to mention here that Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2
contain the fact that 3 bulbs, 3 fans, 2 TVs, 1 fridge, 2 coolers, 1 water pump,
1 AC etc. have been found being used by taking electricity illegally but such
articles have not been seized by the complainant party for the reasons best
known to them. It is also important omission on the part of complainant.
15. It is settled principle of law that if there two views are possible
from the evidence, the view favourable to the accused will prevail.
Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly adopted such view and
acquitted the respondent/accused from the levelled charge. No ground
emerges to this Court warranting interference in the judgment of acquittal by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4225
7 CRA-650-2017
the learned trial Court.
16. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu,
(2016) 14 SCC 151 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that prosecution has to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also the rule
of justice in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence
adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other
towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be
adopted. In case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., (2023) 6 SCC
605 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is a settled principle of law that
however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Unless finding of the trial Court is found to be perverse or
illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the appellate Court to interfere
with the same.
17. Recently in case of Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka,
(2024) 3 SCC 544 the Hon'ble Apex Court has again summarized the
principles while deciding the appeal against acquittal which are as follows :-
"42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise
that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and
the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any
failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding
an appeal from acquittal could be summarised as :
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and
such appreciation must be comprehensive -- inclusive of all evidence,
oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a
miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views
are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be
followed;
(iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere
possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal
on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:4225
8 CRA-650-2017
reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover all the
facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate
court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact
in the decision of the trial court."..."
18. Ex consequenti, in the light of the aforesaid discussion and the
ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid cases, on careful
analysis of the evidence, the observations made by the learned trial Court in
the impugned judgment are not found to be faulty. The learned trial Court on
proper appreciation of evidence available on record has rightly acquitted the
accused/respondent. There is no ground for interference with the findings of
the trial Court.
19. Therefore, while affirming the findings of acquittal of respondent
by trial Court, the appeal being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
DV
