IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court must respect acquittals unless substantial evidence of error or illegality is demonstrated, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat under Section 378 (1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.3.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) in Sessions (G.E.B.) Case No. 6 of 2004, whereby, the trial Court has acquitted the original accused-respondents herein for the offence punishable under Sections 135 (B) and 150 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (“the Act” for short).

2. It is the case of the complainant that accused No. 1 possessed one factory and for which he made an application before for G.E.B. LTP III connection. After getting sanction from G.E.B. he bought LTP III meter himself and by tempering meter to run it slow, committed a mischief and by helping to do so, accused no. 2 has also committed an offence punishable under Sections 135 (B) and 150 of the Act. Therefore, complaint came to be filed against respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2.1 On the basis of the said complaint, after thorough investigation, as there was sufficient evidence against the present respondents-accused, charge sheet came to be filed against them. However, as the case was sessions triable by the Special Elec. Court, the same was registered as Sessions (G.E.B.) Case No. 6 of 2004. Thereafter, charge was framed against accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 135 (B) and 150 of Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution therefore led evidence before the Court. The Prosecution has examined number of witnesses as well as produced various documentary evidences on the record of the case.

2.2 At the conclusion of the trial and after hearing both the sides and after evaluating the evidence placed on record, the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons from the offences punishable Section 135 (B) and 150 of the Act.

2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the trial Court, the appellant State has preferred present appeal.

3. Heard Ms. Megha Chitalia, learned APP for the appellant State of Gujarat. Though served respondents have chosen not to appear before this Court and therefore, the order is passed in absence of the respondents.

4. Ms. Megha Chitalia, learned APP for the appellant State has submitted that the trial Court has committed serious error of law and on facts both while passing the impugned order of acquittal in favour of the respondents. She has further submitted that the prosecution has produced sufficient material and through the oral as well documentary evidence of the witnesses, proved that the present respondents have committed an offence of theft of electricity. She has submitted that trial Court has not believed the said fact and completely overlooked the evidence while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. She has further submitted that the trial Court has completely overlooked and ignored the material fact that the meter purchased by the respondent from the open market was found tempered with by using some outside material i.e. magnate and because of that though the consumption was there, but usage was not reported in the meter and that is how the respondents have committed an offence of theft of electricity, however, the trial Court has completely ignored all these facts and passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

4.1 In view of the above submissions, Ms. Chitalia, learned APP for the appellant urges before the Court that present Appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal may be quashed and set aside.

5. I have perused the material available on record as well as the documents appended thereto. I have also gone through the record of the Appeal and impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. I have also examined the evidence recorded by the trial Co