The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order rendered in Special Electric Case No. 14/2005 by the learned Special Judge, Vadodara, dated 26.2.2010 recording the conviction of the accused for offence under sec. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Old Act') as well as sec. 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the New Act') and imposing sentence of simple imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 26,68,198/-, i/d S.I. for 3 months.

2. The facts of the case, briefly summarised, are as follows:

2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.5.2001 a raid was carried out by the Deputy Engineer and other officers of Gujarat Electricity Board (for short 'GEB') at Village Sandha and found that the accused was organizing a cricket tournament in the open ground near the lake at village Sandha for which he had unautorisedly taken electric connection by joining wires from the pole and had utilized 11 halogen lamps for the purpose and thereby committed theft of electricity and the complaint was given by the Dy. Engineer for indulging in theft of electricity at exh. 13 and for recovery of fine to the tune of Rs. 8,89,399.13. On the basis of this, the aforesaid case has been registered as required under the New Act and the learned Special Judge framed the charge for the offence under sec. 39 of the Old Act r/w sec. 135(1) of the New Act and proceeded with the trial.

2.2 In order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined the witnesses, inter alia, the complainant, Dy. Engineer, and other officers of GEB who were members of the raiding party and the panch witnesses who have turned hostile.

2.3 After recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, further statement of the accused under sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.

2.4 After hearing the learned APP as well as the learned advocate for the defence, the learned Special Judge, Vadodara recorded the conviction of the accused both for the offence under sec. 39 of the Old Act r/w sec. 135(1) of the New Act and sentenced him as stated hereinabove imposing huge amount of fine. The fine, though stated to be Rs. 8,89,399.13, ultimately the fine has been imposed to the tune of Rs. 26,68,198/-.

3. It is this judgment which has been assailed, inter alia, on the ground that the conviction of the accused for the alleged offence has been recorded erroneously as the charge itself is defective and untenable and also the conviction and sentence recorded under sec. 135 of the New Act would not be sustainable as the New Act was not there at the time of the incident. Further, it has also been contended that there are major contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses including the officers of GEB and the conviction has been recorded on the sole basis of the confessional statement or the statements recorded by the officers of the GEB. It is also contended that framing of the charge under sec. 135 of the New Act is illegal as the offence had taken place before commencement of the New Act and the Act would not be applicable. It has also been contended that even for the conviction under sec. 39 of the Old Act it is required to be proved that the accused is a consumer and as per the evidence on record, the accused is not a consumer and therefore the learned Judge has committed an error in recording conviction and has also failed to appreciate these aspects as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

4. As this matter is of the year 2010 only according to serial no., normally it would not have been taken up. However, the learned counsel has stated that while preferring this appeal the application for suspension of sentence was filed and this Court vide order dated 14.5.2010 passed an order for suspension of the sentence on the condition that instead of fine of Rs. 26,68,198/-, the basic amount of Rs. 8,89,399.13 shall be deposited. As this is also a sizable amount for