The appellate court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

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 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khambhaliya (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (GEB) Case No. 23 of 2012 on 02-11-2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

1.1] The respondent is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” in the rank and file as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1] On 07-05-2009, the complainant Kalpeshbhai Bhagwanjibhai Kanani, Deputy Engineer, PGVCL had gone for checking at the farm of the accused and found that the accused was not a consumer of electricity and had taken an illegal connection by joining a cable wire directly to the electric line and had taken the wire to a distance of about 250 meters in his farm and was running a 12.5 HP electric motor. The necessary procedure was done and a bill of theft of electricity of Rs.31,590.80/- was given to the accused but the accused did not pay the amount of bill and hence a complaint was filed under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 against the accused, which was registered at GEB Police Station, Rajkot Zone being II-C.R.No. 1765 of 2009.

2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khambhaliya, and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Khambhaliya as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Special (GEB) Case No. 246 of 2000.

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 at Exh. 4 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 5, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4] The prosecution produced three oral evidences and ten documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.24, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the charge leveled against him.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarran