The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed theft of electricity, and the appellate court is reluctant to overturn acquittals without clear evidence of illegality.

JUDGMENT :

Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.

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 23/04/2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Special (G.E.B.) Case No.87 of 2006, whereby, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted the original accused respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “the Act”) .

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that, on 19/12/2003, the complainant carried out checking with his checking staff in area in Fatepura, Dhro and they found that present respondent accused had tempered the meter by breaking plastic seal of the meter and used the electricity directly and therefore, accused was caught red handed by the checking team, and meter was seized and sent to the laboratory. After report of the laboratory, the complainant made supplementary bill of Rs.19,136.25/- and was given to the respondent accused. That, on non payment of the said bill by the respondent accused, on 26.02.2004, complaint was lodged before Gujarat Electricity Board, Police Station, Rajkot vide Cr.No.II.438/2004. On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was initiated and after thorough investigation as there was sufficient evidence against the present respondent-accused, charge sheet was filed against him, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhrol. However, as the case was sessions triable by the Special Elec. Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, committed the said case to the Sessions Court as per the provisions of 209 of Criminal Procedure Code and the same was registered as Special Elect. Case No.87 of 2006. Thereafter, charge was framed against the respondent accused for the offences punishable under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act,2003. The accused person pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution therefore, laid evidence.

2.1 In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence before the trial court, which are as under :-

oral evidence :

Documentary Evidence :

2.2 At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar, acquitted the respondent accused from the offences punishable Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act vide impugned judgment and order dated 23/04/2009.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, 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.

Though served, none has remained present on behalf of the respondent accused