ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Shaikh Nafisabanu Iqbalhusen Bachumiya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State.
2. The State has filed this acquittal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 30.06.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity), Mehsana in Special (GEB) Case No. 20 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Section 135(I)(B) of the Indian Electricity Act.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.10.2008 at about 7.00 hours, complainant - Junior Engineer, Shri R.J.Patel alongwith Junior Engineer Shri M.R. Patel and Lineman P.I. Patel as well as other staff members had carried out inspection at the premises of respondent accused situated at Sath Bazar Navgari, besides Taluka Panchayat, Vijapur, District : Mehsana and during their inspection, respondent was found committing theft of electricity by way of illegal means. Therefore, an average bills of Rs. 27,901.20/- was prepared and issued respondent, which was not paid by him within period of limitation and therefore, complaint was filed against respondent. It is to be noted at this stage that earlier on 13.03.2007, respondent was found committing theft of electricity accordingly checking sheet bearing No. 003886
Atley v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 807
Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216
Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P.
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415
Dhanapal v. State (2009) 10 SCC 401
Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P (2009) 10 SCC 636)
Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad (2001) 1 SCC 501
Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P (2008) 10 SCC 450
K. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. (1979) 1 SCC 355
K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 309
Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar (1970) 2 SCC 450
Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1999) 2 SCC 10
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200
Narendra Singh v. State of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699
Perla Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P (2009) 16 SCC 98
Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn (1984) 4 SCC 635
Ram Singh v. State of H.P (2010) 2 SCC 445)
Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225
S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (2008) 5 SCC 535
Sambasivan v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 412
Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761
Shambhoo Missir v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755)
State of Rajasthan v. Naresh (2009) 9 SCC 368
State of U.P. v. Banne (2009) 4 SCC 271
State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh (2007) 13 SCC 102
Surajpal Singh v. State AIR 1952 SC 52
Tulsiram Kanu v. State AIR 1954 SC 1
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.
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 appellate court's jurisdiction under Section 378 allows reappreciation of evidence, but it cannot overturn an acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible.
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is reinforced by the trial court's acquittal, and appellate courts should only interfere with an order of acquittal in exceptional cases with comp....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.