The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. Present appeal is filed by the State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the impugned judgment and order dated 03.08.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge and 7th Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Additional District Court, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) in Special (Electricity) Case No. 8 of 2005 whereby the trial Court has acquitted the respondents-accused from the charges levelled against them.

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

2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.05.2004, the officers of the Gujarat Vij Company Shri Arifbhai Abdulbhai Ghanchi, Junior Engineer and others have carried out inspection at the premises of the accused and they found illegal electricity connection and, therefore, the accused had committed theft of electricity energy respectively. It is alleged that all the accused have jointly by suing the water motor committed theft of 3730 watts amounting to Rs.1,30,186.92 totaling to Rs.3,45,326.50 and, therefore, the supplementary bill of Rs.3,45,326.50 was issued in favour of the accused, which was not paid by them within stipulated time limit.

3. A complaint came to be registered as C.R. No. I-919/2004 at G.E.B. Police Station, Rajkot for the offence under Sections 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”).

4. After completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) wherein it was registered as Criminal Case No. 3142 of 2004. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Special Court wherein it has been registered as Special Criminal (Electricity) Case No. 8 of 2005.

5. The charge against the accused came to be framed by the learned Presiding Officer and Special Judge vide Exhibit 14 for the aforesaid offences. On being explained it to them, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial. Hence, the case was tried by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge.

6. It appears from the records that the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:

7. In addition to this, the prosecution has also produced the following documentary evidence:

8. After closure of the evidence, the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been recorded wherein they denied of having committed any offence and have stated that they are innocent.

9. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them.

10. Heard Ms. Megha Chitaliya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State of Gujarat and Ms. Dhara Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused at length. Perused the material on record.

11. Ms. Chitalya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and submitted that the accused have committed an offence of theft of electricity, for which supplementary