JUDGMENT :

Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J.

1. Though served, none appears for the respondent-original accused. The matter is old, of 2008 and accordingly, the Court proceeded with the matter.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant-State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 21.01.2008, passed in Special (GEB) Case No. 1 of 2004 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Jamnagar, recording the acquittal.

3. Facts in brief are that the respondent-original accused was running his business at Village: Nikava, Taluka: Kalavad, District: Jamnagar in the name and style of Bholenath Stone Suppliers and had availed the electricity connection having Consumer No. 32731/00958/6. That, on 29.09.2003, on checking the meter and examining the same in the laboratory, there appeared tampering in the same and thereby, theft of electricity by the respondent-accused and therefore, after getting due sanction, the respondent-accused was given supplementary bill to the tune of Rs. 6,24,906.56. Thus, the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 for which, FIR came to be registered against him.

3.1 Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of several witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence in question. The case was committed to the Special Court and the learned trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant-State.

4.1 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. It is 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 Additional Public Prosecutor 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-accused.

4.2 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as prosecution witnesses have clearly supported the case of the prosecution and narrated the whole case verbatim. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have considered and believed the evidence of prosecution witnesses however, it is not the case and thereby, has committed a grave error.

4.3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State submitted that despite sufficient material was there on record in support of the case of the prosecution and though the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge has committed error in discarding the evidence on record and not believing the same.

4.4 It is submitted that the learned trial Judge has ignored the settled legal position and thereby, has erred in coming to such a conclusion.

4.5 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, taking this Court through the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, submitted that though the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and thereby, has committed an error in recording acquittal. It is submitted that though all the ingredients of the offence alleged had been pro