An appellate court may review evidence in acquittal cases but should not overturn unless there is clear illegality or lack of evidence supporting the conviction.

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 order dated 30.11.2009 in Special (G.E.B.) Case No.133 of 2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 135 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. Ramjibhai Vashrambhai Nakum was a consumer of electricity and was given Consumer No. 87101/59075/6 in Plot No.385 situated in the G.I.D.C. in Darek area, Taluka Jamnagar and on 17.03.2006 at around 11:20 hours, the members of the E.I.C. Squad Jamnagar including Mr.J.J.Bhatt and other staff members had done checking in Darek, Taluka Jamnagar and found the accused Ashishbhai Jayrambhai Patel had tampered with the meter seal and had made a hole in the top cover and had committed theft of 31HP electricity. The necessary procedure was done and a bill of theft of Rs.2,79,675.55/- was given to the accused after the calculation as per rules, but the same was not paid, and hence, the complainant, Nitinbhai Chimanlal Ghelani, Deputy Engineer, P.G.V.C.L., Jamnagar filed a complaint under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act on 04.04.2006, which was registered at G.E.B Police Station, Rajkot Zone at II-CR No. 257 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 which culminated into Criminal Case No.5529 of 2006. 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 (G.E.B.) Case No.133 of 2006.

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.3 and the statement of the accused was recorded, at Exh.4, 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 04 witnesses and has produced 13 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.29, 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 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 natural justice. The impugned 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 learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that though there are direct and indirect evidences connecting the respondent with crime in produced in this case, the Trial Court has come to conclusion that the p