Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M.K. THAKKER, J.
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Vipulbhai Jaysukhbhai Shah – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (Against Acquittal) No. 745 of 2016, Criminal Misc. Application (Direction) No. 1 of 2023
Decided On : 15-04-2024
Electricity Theft - Criminal Procedure Code - 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 - The judgment and order of acquittal dated 10-02-2016 passed by Learned Special Judge, Surendranagar in (electricity) case No. 11 of 2011.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, an electricity company, alleged that the consumer had manipulated the meter using an external device, resulting in theft of electricity amounting to Rs. 14,14,568.09. The respondent-accused was acquitted by the Special Court, which was challenged in this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The circular on which the prosecution was based was not a statutory source, and the number mentioned in the circular did not match the number found in the meter. The Court also noted the delay in lodging the complaint after disconnection of electricity, which was a mandatory provision.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the circular as a basis for prosecution, the mismatch in numbers, the delay in lodging the complaint, and the failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the circular alone cannot be conclusive proof, and the prosecution failed to collect independent evidence. The delay in lodging the complaint after disconnection of electricity was a breach of mandatory provisions.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order of acquittal were confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
M.K. THAKKER, J.
1. This appeal is filed under section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10-02-2016 passed by Learned Special Judge, Surendranagar in (electricity) case No. 11 of 2011.
2. It is the case of the complainant who is electricity company namely Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited that, on 24-03-2010, the checking was carried out of the electricity connection of the consumer namely Messers Rumi Plast situated at GIDC, phase 2 at Vadhvan. It was found that, the consumer of the licensee company which is supplying the electricity is having the consumer number 72601/00705 and having the industrial connection under tariff of L.T.P. iii, manipulation was made in the meter by way of external device and thereby they have committed theft of electricity for the amount of Rs. 14,14,568.09/- and thereby caused monetary loss to the electricity company.
2.1. Alleging the aforesaid charges, a complaint came to be lodged by the officer of the electricity company against Mr. Vipul Jaysukhbhai Shah and Mr. Hitenbhai Shah which was registered being IICR No. 846 of 2010 for the offence punishable under section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned competent court against applicant only, which was registered under criminal case No. 708 of 2010. As a special Court was having the power to adjudicate the charges, therefore it was committed to the learned Special Court, Surendranagar and was numbered as Special (Electric) case No. 11 of 2011. The charges came to be framed below Exh.22 and plea came to be recorded below Exh.23, whereby the respondent-accused pleaded non guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the guilt, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and produced 16 documentary evidences before the learned Special Court. After considering the evidence placed on record and the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the learned Special Court has acquitted the respondent-accused from the charges which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned APP Ms. Vrunda Shah for the State, learned Advocate Ms. Amrita Ajmera for the respondent-accused and on the request made by the learned Advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya for PGVCL, an opportunity of hearing was given to the complainant.
4. Learned APP as well as Ms. Bhaya for the complainant submits that the instant case was an example of the latest advanced modus operandi of committing the theft of electricity, where neither static meter is required to be touched, nor the seal is required to be tampered or the meter is required to be opened nor any internal part of meter is required to be disturbed. High tech instrument/circuit is used to stop the correct consumption of recording in the meter, whenever this instrument is brought near the meter, the meter would stop recording the correct consumption and the moment you remove the external circuit, the meter would again start working normally. It is submitted that this instrument was being used on large scale in the Saurashtra region and it was difficult for the electricity company to find the theft of the electricity by such modus operandi. The L&T Company who is the manufacturer of the meter has found that as wherever such external circuit is used for committing theft of electricity, in analysis report of the meter it was confirmed that meter is subjected to some external means which may lead the meter into appearance of the value in cumulative energy like 9496729.5 and it has resulted into prevention of registration of electricity's actual energy. If this figure comes in the meter, then it can be assumed that external device is used to stop recording the correct consumption in the meter, therefore a circular has been issued by the PGVCL to the field officers to find out where these type of anomaly
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mandatory provisions must be adhered to in lodging complaints.
The appellate court must respect acquittals unless substantial evidence of error or illegality is demonstrated, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence and independent witnesses to establish guilt in theft of electricity cases; mere allegations are insufficient for conviction.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence linking the accused to the offense.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to establish the respondent's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In appeals against acquittal, the Appellate Court must respect the presumption of innocence unless compelling reasons demonstrate evidence leading to conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
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....
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
