Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
S.V. PINTO
State of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Shitalsingh Mudsingh Zala – Respondent
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 c
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.
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 judgmen....
The appellate court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellate court may review evidence in acquittal appeals but must respect the presumption of innocence and not disturb acquittals without compelling reasons.
In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court should defer to the trial court's findings unless compelling evidence of manifest error or illegality exists.
In appeal against acquittal, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants affirmation of the trial court's judgment.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and that procedural errors existed in filing the complaint.
In appeals against acquittal, the court must show compelling reasons to overturn the acquittal, favoring the principle of presumption of innocence and the need for conclusive evidence.
An appellate court must respect a trial court's acquittal unless evidence of manifest injustice is clear and compelling.
In appeals against acquittals, courts must uphold the presumption of innocence unless a lack of evidentiary support leads to a manifest error in the trial court's judgment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
