IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence and independent witnesses to establish guilt in theft of electricity cases; mere allegations are insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat (original complainant) under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 04/09/2012 passed by the learned Special Judge & 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Special (Elec.) Case No.46 of 2009, whereby, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted the original accused respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(A) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “the Act”).

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :

2.1 The complainant Dy. Engineer, Shri Jitendrasinh Laxmansinh Rathod, Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., Dist. Sabarkantha lodged a complaint against respondent before, UGVCL (GEB) Police Station, Sabarmati for the alleged offence under Section 135(1)(A) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. According to complainant, it is the case of prosecution that on 27/01/2006, inspection was carried out at the premises of respondent accused situated at village Dhunavada, Taluka Modasa, Dist. Sabarkantha and during inspection it was noticed that though respondent was not having any regular connection, he had obtained illegal direct connection from law transmission line of GEB with the help of electric wire and thereby committed theft of electricity of Rs.1,83,304.88 p. Therefore, an average bill of Rs.1,83,304.88 p. was prepared and issued to respondent, which was not paid by him within a period of limitation and therefore, complaint was filed against the respondent before UGVCL (GEB) Police Station, Sabarmati for alleged offence under Section 135(1)(A) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

2.2 On the basis of aforesaid complaint, police recorded statement of witnesses, and as there was sufficient evidence connecting respondent with crime produced in this case, chargesheet was filed before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Modasa and numbered as Criminal Case No.1810 of 2009. As the offence committed by respondent was absolutely triable by the court of Special Judge, the same was committed to the court of Special Judge 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was numbered as Special Elec. Case No.46 of 2009. Thereafter, respondent was ordered to issue with summons and after service of summons, respondent had appeared before the court, wherein, he had not pleaded guilty for the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.

2.3 Before trial, prosecution had examined complainant, police witnesses and panch witnesses who were supporting the case of the prosecution. At the end of the trial, the learned Judge, after appreciating necessary evidence laid down by the prosecution, acquitted the respondent by his Judgment and order of acquittal dated 04/09/2012 for the offence with which he was charged.

2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal dated 04/09/2012, passed by the learned Special Judge and 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in Special Elec. Case No.46 of 2009, the appellant – State of Gujarat has filed the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat. Though the notice of Rule is served upon the respondent accused, the respondent accused has chosen not to remain present before the Court.

4. Learned APP Ms.Bhatt has taken this Court to the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced before the trial court and taken through the relevant provisions of law and the authorities referred and relied upon to canvass the contentions raised before this Court for the purpose of considering the present appeal against acquittal. She has submitted that the prosecution has proved the cha