The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of acquittal, the appellate court should be slow to interfere with the trial court's findings, especially when two views are possible on the evidence. The presumption of innocence and the principles of criminal jurisprudence should be given due consideration.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 16/10/2015 passed by the learned 5th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Special (GEB) Case No.347 of 2014 whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused/respondent from the offence punishable under section 135 OF Indian Electricity Act 2003.

2. Brief case of the prosecution is that on 14/03/2013, Junior Engineer Shri S. R. Varmora along with line staff members had went on inspection. During the inspection, they found that the respondent – accused has obtained illegal electric connection by applying direct service cable to the nearby exectric pole at his residential premises. The raiding officer has prepared the Panchnama of the place of offence at Exh. 10, a checking sheet at Exh. 22 and Rojkam at Exh.20. The supplementary bill was issued by the Deputy Engineer for the amount of Rs.95,388/- and the same was forwarded to the respondent – accused. The supplementary bill remained unpaid and therefore, complaint was filed before GEB Police Station, Rajkot on 04/04/2013, which was registered as CR No.II-2258 of 2013 for the offence under section 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

3. Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer has recorded statements of witnesses and produced documentary evidences. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondent for the offence in question, in the court of learned 3rd Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar.

3.1 As the case was execlusively triable by the learned Special Judge, the learned Magistrate was pleased to commit the case to the Special Court, which was numbered as Special (GEB) Case No.347 of 2014.

4. The learned Sessions Judge before whom the case was committed, framed the Charge. The accused denied the contents of the charge. As a result, trial was conducted by the learned Special Judge. Further Statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which accused/respondent denied the charges and prayed for trial. Upon recording of the further statement of the accused, arguments were heard by the learned Special Judge and thereafter trial was resulted into acquittal of the respondent/accused from the charge levelled against him, as a result of which the present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat.

5. Heard learned APP Ms. Asmita Patel for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Milan R. Maruti for learned advocate Mr. P. M. Lakhani for the respondent – original accused.

6. The learned APP has mainly contended that the learned Special Judge has erred in holding that the prosectuion has failed to prove its case beyond reasonabe doubt. The learned APP submitted that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is based on presumptions and inference and thereby, it is against the facts and the evidence on record. The learned APP further submitted that the learned Special 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.

6.1 It is further submitted by the learned APP that learned Special Judge has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the Special Judge has erred in acquitting the respondents - accused from the charge levelled against him and the learned Special Judge ought to have seen that there are direct and indirect evidence connecting respondent with the offence. It is further submitted that learned Special Judge without appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence on record of the case, straight way arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the alleged offence under section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act. It is further submitted that though the prosecution wi