Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Mehdi Agah Karbalal on 7 April, 2025
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.513 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant, aggrieved by
the order of acquittal passed by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Hyderabad, in Electricity Sessions Case PCS No.3/2011, dated
14.02.2020, for the offence under Section 135(1)(b) of the Indian
electricity Act, 2003.
2. The case of the defacto complainant, who was the Inspector of
Police, PS Vigilance & APTS Team-III, Hyderabad, is that on 12.01.2009
at about 12.30 hours, he, along with 2 others, inspected the premises
of the respondent/accused. Inspection was done on service connection
bearing No.CZ-007583 of Best Bakery, in which they found extra
pressing marks and seal bits building marks on the meter seal box, and
seals were tampered with. In the presence of the accused, the meter
was taken and sent to MRT lab for testing. It was found that the
accused had indulged in tampering with the meter box seals and
thereby committed theft of energy, resulting in an estimated loss of Rs.
6,28,383/-.
3. Learned Special Judge examined the witnesses PWs.1 to 5, of
whom PWs.1 and 2 were the persons who conducted the inspection,
and PW.3 is the person who tested the electric meters. Exs.P1 to P8
were also marked during evidence.
4. The learned Special Judge found that a person named Ashok,
whose name was reflected in the proceedings, was a worker of Best
Bakery where the inspection had taken place. Further, the signature of
the said Ashok was taken, but he was not examined during the course
of the trial. According to PWs.1 and 2, the accused was present during
the inspection; however it is not clear as to why the signatures of the
accused were not taken on the inspection notes, while the signatures of
one Ashok were taken.
5. The learned Special Judge further found that the Investigation
Officer found that there was no document to show that M.O.1-the meter
was installed in the Best Baker premises where the inspection had
taken place. One Ashok and one Mohd.Sultan, who according to PWs.1
and 2 were present during inspection, were not examined. No reason is
given as to why the signatures of the accused were not taken on the
inspection notes.
6. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and
another 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while dealing with an
(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536
appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether
the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly
when the evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an
order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of
the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in
reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
7. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled
principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the
order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:
"70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts
should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of
Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's
acquittal:
1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial
court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing
so.
A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have
"very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's
decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:
i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably
wrong:
ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;
iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of
justice";
iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence
was patently illegal;
v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;
(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450
vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material
evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report
of the ballistic Ex.Pert, etc.
vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and
consideration o the findings of the trial court.
3. If two reasonable views can be reached__ one that leads to
acquittal, the other to conviction __the High Courts/appellate courts must
rule in favour of the accused."
8. Learned Special Judge found that the prosecution has failed to
provide evidence regarding the meter-M.O.1 being installed in the
premises of Best Bakery, where the inspection was done. Further, the
persons who were allegedly present at the time of inspection, i.e., Ashok
and Mohd.Sultan, were not examined. Though it is admitted that the
appellant was present at the time of inspection, the signature of the
appellant was not taken in the inspection notes. No reasons were given
as to why the signatures of the appellant were not obtained on the
inspection notes.
9. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the well
reasoned Judgment of the learned Special Judge.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 07.04.2025
tk
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.513 OF 2020
Date: 07.04.2025
tk
