IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court's jurisdiction under Section 378 allows reappreciation of evidence, but it cannot overturn an acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible.

JUDGMENT :

Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.

1. The State of Gujarat has preferred present Appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C. for short) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.2.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge (GEB) and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Special (GEB) Case No. 136 of 2005 whereby the original accused was acquitted from the charges levelled against him under Section 135(1)(A) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

2. It is the case of the appellant-State that on 14.05.2004, Jr. Engineer of the P.G.V.C.L, Shri J.J. Gohil along with Shri.Y.R. Jadeja had carried out inspection at the premises of the respondent-accused. During inspection, it was observed that the respondent-accused had illegally committed theft of electricity for an amount of Rs.46,692.45 therefore, supplementary bill of Rs.46,692.45 was prepared and issued to respondent-accused, which was not paid by him within stipulated time.

2.1 Accordingly, complaint being C.R.No. II- 500/2004 was lodged before G.E.B. Police Station, Bhavnagar for the alleged theft of electricity under Section 135 (1) (A) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

2.2 On the basis of such complaint, the investigation was carried out and on conclusion of the investigation, on the basis of the material collected against the respondent-accused, since the Investigating Officer found a prima facie case against the respondent- accused, chargesheet came to be filed before the Court of the Learned Magistrate, Bhavnagar for the offence under Section 135 (1)(A) of the Indian Electricity Act, which came registered as Criminal Case No.5569/2004.

2.3 As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Special Judge, the Learned Magistrate committed the case to the Special Court, Bhavnagar under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., which came to be registered as Special (GEB) Case No.136/2005.

2.4 In support of its case the prosecution has relied upon following oral as well as documentary evidence.

ORAL EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

2.5 After evaluating the evidence placed on record and after hearing both the sides, the trial Court has passed the impugned order dated 16.2.2012 in Special (GEB) Case No. 136 of 2005 acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against him under Section 135(1)(A) of the Indian Electricity Act.

3. Heard Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned APP appearing for the respondent State of Gujarat. Though served, the respondent accused has chosen not to remain present before the Court and therefore, the Appeal is taken up for hearing in absence of the respondent-accused.

4. Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, learned APP appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that though there is cogent and material evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial Court, the trial Court has completely overlooked and ignored the same and passed the impugned order of acquittal which is erroneous, illegal and unjust.

4.1 It is further contended by learned APP that the witnesses have categorically deposed before the trial Court that during the course of their duty, they have received an instruction from the division office with regard to search and on the basis of such information, they have arranged the search operation and upon the investigation carried out at the place, they found that one Firozbhai accused by using the electric apparatus extracting the electricity directly from the electricity pole situated near his house and got the electric connection in his house illegally and f