An appellate court can review evidence in acquittal appeals but must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless there is clear illegality or perversity.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 135(1)(A) - Appeal against acquittal - The Trial Court acquitted the accused of theft of electricity, finding insufficient evidence to support the prosecution's case. The appeal contended that the acquittal was contrary to law and evidence. (Paras 1, 4, 11)

(B) Powers of Appellate Court - The appellate court has the power to review and reappreciate evidence but must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless there is manifest illegality or perversity. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The accused was alleged to have illegally connected to the electricity supply, resulting in theft valued at Rs.45,826.22. The complaint was filed six months post-incident, and the prosecution's evidence was primarily from the complainant and his team, with no independent witnesses. (Paras 3.1, 10)

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court found no cogent evidence linking the accused to the crime, noting the absence of seized materials and independent corroboration. (Paras 10, 11)

Issues: The main issues were the adequacy of evidence to support the charges and the validity of the acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the acquittal was justified based on the evidence presented. (Paras 11)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

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 31.05.2012 in Special (Electricity) Case No.26 of 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby, the 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 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. Though served, the respondent has not appeared either in person or has not engaged any lawyer to make submission on his behalf.

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

3.1. The complainant Mohitkumar Sudhirchand Gandhi was working as the Deputy Engineer, UGVCL, Sub-Division Rakhiyal Taluka and District Gandhinagar on 09.02.2007 had gone along with Junior Engineer, Mahesh Rameshchandra Bhupatkar and other members with the staff for checking electricity connections. They checked the electricity connections in the outskirts of village Vadod, Taluka Dehgam, District Gandhinagar and on checking the connection of the field of the accused, they found that the accused had placed an illegal connection on the L.T.Line T.C. and using electricity by applying a 7.5 H.P. motor. The accused was caught committing theft of electricity to the tune of Rs.45,826.22/-, a bill of theft of electricity of Rs.45,826.22/- was given to the accused, but the accused did not pay up the amount, and hence, the complainant, Mohitkumar Sudhirchandra Gandhi Deputy Engineer, UGVCL, Sub-Division Rakhiyal, Taluka and District Gandhinagar, filed a complaint under section 135(a)(A) of the Indian electricity Act, 2003, which was registered at G.E.B. Police Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad II-CR No.812 of 2007 on 10.08.2007.

3.2. 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 committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Special (Electricity) Case No.26 of 2009.

3.3. 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 and a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.9 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.10, 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 the witnesses and has produced the documentary evidences in support of the case.

3.4. 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.

4. 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. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court has not properly appre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document