An appellate court may review evidence in acquittal appeals but must respect the presumption of innocence and not interfere unless there is clear illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment.

JUDGMENT :

(S.V. PINTO, J.)

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 27.09.2012 in Special Case (Electricity) No.9 of 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Anand (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 135(1)(A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Electricity Act’). 1.1. 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 21.03.2006, Deputy Engineers R.N.Parmar and R.B.Ganava, along with other staff members of MGVCL had gone for checking of electricity connections at village Rinza and had checked the room in the possession of the accused situated near the bus stand and found one welding machine, one bulb, one fan and a thresher were being used. The accused was not a consumer of MGVCL and they found the accused committing theft of electricity. A yellow colour wire and a blue copper wire about 96 mtr. long and a wire 10.70 mtr. long were seized from the place of offence and the calculation sheet was prepared as per the rules of the MGVCL and a bill of theft of electricity of Rs.3,01,128.30/- was given to the accused. The accused did not pay up the amount, and hence, the complaint was filed by Rameshbhai Valjibhai Ganava, Deputy Engineer, MGVCL, Tarapur Sub Division before the G.E.B. Police Station, Gotri, Vadodara, which came to be registered as G.E.B Police Station, Vadodara I-C.R.No.191 of 2006 under section 135(1)(A) of the Electricity Act.

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 which culminated into Criminal Case No.1466 of 2009. 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 committed to the Sessions Court, Anand and the same was registered as Special Case (Electricity) No.9 of 2009.

2.3. The accused was 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.6 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.7, 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 07 witnesses and has produced 08 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)(A) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record. The learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record it its true spirit. The learned Trial Court has not properly scrutinized and appreciated the material and evidence on record which suggest that the respon