J.V.V.N.Ltd vs Hakim Mohd
2022 Latest Caselaw 3850 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 314/2013

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
Hakim Mohammed
                                                                ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. K.V. Vyas
For Respondent(s)        :          -

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

11/03/2022

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the

judgment dated 03.06.2011 passed by learned Special Judge,

Electricity Act Cases (Additional Session Judge no.1), Jodhpur, in

Sessions Case No. 7/2010 arising out of FIR no. 150/2009 dated

22.11.2009, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the

offences under Sections 135 & 138 of the The Indian Electricity

Act, 2003.

3. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court, are that on

06.10.2009, a vigilance team of appellant-JDVVNL found that the

petitioner has tampered with the electricity meter of his house,

and therefore, committed offences under Sections 135 and 138 of

Act of 2003.

(2 of 3) [CRLA-314/2013]

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-JDVVNL submits that the

learned Court below has not rightly appreciated the facts and

circumstances of the case and has erred in passing the impugned

judgment, despite the testimony of P.W.1 which clearly reveals

that the tampering was done with the electricity meter.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent however, submits that

the impugned judgment was passed by the learned court below

after appreciating all the relevant aspects of the case as well as

the material available on record before it.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the

learned court below had passed the impugned judgment only after

appreciating witnesses' testimony and while recording reasoned

and logical findings, i.e. except P.W. 1, no other witness saw the

respondent tampering with the electricity meter, and other witness

testimony against the respondent at best, was hearsay. Also, that

during the investigation, the investigation officer did not notice

any tampering and the supposedly tampered with meter, was not

presented into evidence before the learned court below, and

therefore, appeared to be a cooked up story.

7. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

8. This Court observes that the impugned judgment passed by

the learned court below acquitting the respondent is a well

reasoned speaking order, as the same had been passed after

taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances

of the case, and the evidence placed on the record before the

learned court below, viz. relevant witnessess' testimony and

documents.

(3 of 3) [CRLA-314/2013]

9. This Court further observes that, as submitted by the

learned counsel for the respondent, and as is reflected from the

record of the case that the learned Court below, only after

recording logical and reasoned observations, as to the effect that

out of all the witnesses, only one saw the electricity meter being

tampered with, which however was, at a subsequent stage not

noticed by the investigating officer during the investigation, and

further the same was not placed before the learned court below,

and therefore, the veracity of the said allegation could not be

ascertained.

10. This Court also observes that the impugned judgment was

passed on 03.06.2011, while the present appeal was only

preferred in the year 2013, and that, there has been laches and

delay in filing of this appeal.

11. In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court does not

find any reason warranting its interference in the impugned

judgment passed by the learned court below.

12. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of. The record of the learned court

below be sent back forthwith.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 139-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)