Point of Law: Where the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of evidence which is but barely possible, it is obvious duty of the High Court to interfere in interest of justice, lest administration of justice be brought to ridicule.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.

1. The present Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order passed in Special (Electricity Act) No. 9 of 2012, by the learned Special Judge (GEB) and District and Sessions Judge, Porbandar, dated 22.10.2013, recording acquittal of the Respondent- Original Accused-Pratapbhai Premji Gohel, who was charged with the offence punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of The Indian Electricity Act 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Electricity Act”).

2. The facts of the case briefly as summarized are that the Accused viz. Pratapbhai Premjibhai Gohil, was running one ice factory namely Jay Ambe Ice Factory and has obtained commercial electricity connection of Gujarat Electricity Board being Customer No. 85901/00847/8. That on 13.5.2011, while the inspection was carried at the factory of the accused, it was found that, in the electric meter, the accused, with the help of other person, connected external devise and because of that, the meter could not move properly. Thereby, the accused disturbed the reading parameter by connecting external device and has committed theft of electric energy amounting to Rs. 2,37,611.09. Hence, a complaint came to be lodged with Rajkot GEB Police Station, Rajkot, under the Electricity Act. On registering the offence against the accused, Investigating agency recorded the statements of the concerned members of the squad and on completing the investigation, found the present accused has committed the theft of electric supply.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, after thorough investigation as there was sufficient evidence against the present Respondent-Accused, charge sheet was filed against him. However, as the case was sessions triable by the learned Special Judge, hence, the same was registered as Special (GEB) Case No. 9 of 2012. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act. The Respondent-Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has thereafter laid evidence. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses as well as produced number of documentary evidences on record of the case. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge (GEB) and District and Sessions Judge, Porbandar, was pleased to acquit the Respondent-Accused from the offences punishable under Section 135 and 138 of the Electricity Act.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge (GEB) and District and Sessions Judge, Porbandar in Special Case No. (Electricity) 9 of 2012, the Appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal.

5. Heard, learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the Appellant-State and learned Advocate Mr. P.M. Dave for the Respondent-Original Accused.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned APP submitted that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is based on presumptions and inferences and thereby, it is against the facts and the evidence on record. The learned APP further submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective and thereby, has erred in recording the acquittal of the Respondent.

7. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri referred to the judgment and order as well as the testimony of number of witnesses and also the documentary evidence. Learned APP has submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice, hence the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court. It is further contended that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge is based on inference not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumpti