Back
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Rajshibhai Lakhmanbhai Suva – Respondent
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 registere
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 o....
The presumption of innocence and the principles for appellate courts to review evidence in appeals against acquittal were central to the judgment.
The prosecution must prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and in the absence of conclusive evidence, the presumption of innocence prevails.
The appellate court's power to review evidence in acquittal appeals is limited, and interference is justified only in exceptional cases with compelling circumstances and when the judgment under appea....
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 the evidence which is but barely possible, i....
The appellate court's jurisdiction under Section 378 allows reappreciation of evidence, but it cannot overturn an acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible.
Where 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 Hi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
