IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and appellate courts should respect trial court acquittals unless a manifest error is evident.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. This appeal under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.01.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (Ele.) Panchmahal at Godhra (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Special Case (Ele.) No. 5 of 2007 whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”).

2. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are as under:

2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.09.2002, while complainant has visited the place of the accused at Village: Chandpura, Taluka: Lunavada for the purpose of checking of electric line, accused No. 1 and 2 were found consuming electric supply directly from the transmission. It is the case of the prosecution that necessary panchnama was drawn on checking sheet and bill of Rs.1,47,380.84 paisa and Rs.1,92,742.30 paise were prepared and issued to the accused which were not paid by the accused.

2.2 On the basis of the said aforesaid, the FIR being C.R. No. II-149 of 2002 came to be filed before Lunavada Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of the Act against the accused, drew the panchnama. The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of the witnesses and collected necessary evidence against the accused.

2.3 After completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has filed the charge-sheet against all the accused before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the concerned Court has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions wherein it has been registered as aforesaid Sessions Case.

2.4 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court on 30.09.2008 for the aforesaid offences against the accused and explained it to them, the accused denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the trial Court.

2.5 To prove the case, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced the documentary evidence before the trial Court.

2.6 After closure of the evidence, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been recorded. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal.

4. Heard Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Gujarat and Mr. Sunil Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents- accused at length.

5. It has been submitted by Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State of Gujarat while referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, has assailed the impugned judgment and order and has submitted that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence connecting the accused with the alleged offence in its proper perspective. He has submitted that the trial Court ought to have believed that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against the accused. He has submitted that the findings of the trial Court are perverse and are based on conjectures and surmises. He has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused by leading evidence of the witnesses. While referring to the evidence of PW-2 Mangalbhai Motibhai Pagi examined at Exhibit 22, who was serving as helper at Lunavada and PW-3 Shaileshbhai Vasudevbhai Pandya examined at Exhibit 23, who was serving as junior engineer at Godhra Circle Office Mr.Brahmbhatt, lea