The appellate court may review evidence in acquittal appeals but must respect the presumption of innocence and not disturb acquittals without compelling reasons.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order dated 22.09.2009 in Special (Electricity) Case No.12 of 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 135(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. On 21.02.2006, the officers of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited had gone for checking in Sahod village and on checking at the house of the accused Jaswantbhai Thakorbhai Patel in D.P. street, they found that the accused had put two wires of the length of 8 meters in the line overhead and was committing a theft of electricity. The necessary procedure was done and as per the assessment, it was found that the accused had committed theft of electricity of Rs.25,531.38/- and the complainant Vipinbhai Motibhai Patel, Deputy Engineer, D.G.V.C.L filed the complaint under section 135(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act 2003, which was registered at G.E.B. Police Station II-C.R.No.1013 of 2006.

2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion of the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was sent to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Special (Electricity) Case No.12 of 2009.

2.3. The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.5 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.6, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses and has produced documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 135(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. That the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumptions not permitted by law. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record it its true spirit. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused though there are ample and cogent evidence to connect the accused with the crime and the offence registered against them. The Trial Court has also committed an error in arriving at the conclusion that though the complainant and the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of th