An appellate court may review evidence in acquittal appeals but should not overturn a trial court's acquittal unless there is clear evidence of illegality or perversity.

JUDGMENT :

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 27.10.2015 in Special (G.E.B.) Case No.260 of 2014 passed by the learned Special Judge and 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 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 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. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. The accused Abubakar Ibrahim Saiyed was a consumer of PGVCL and was given Electricity Consumer No.32207/02402/4. On 03.03.2012, the officers of PGVCL including Deputy Engineer J.B.Saxena went for checking at the residence of the accused situated in Nehru Colony behind Jamnagar police line and found that even though, the accused was a legal customer of PGVCL, he had tapped into the main service line and with a yellow colour wire and a 15 ampere switch and had directly tapped the main line phase and joined it to the wiring of the house in such a way that the meter was by-passed and the consumption of electricity would not be recorded in the meter. The accused had used 3.450 watts of electricity amounting to Rs.82,701.72/ and had committed a theft of electricity, and hence, the complaint was filed by J.B.Saxena, Deputy Engineer, PGVCL before the GUVNL Police Station, Rajkot on 01.11.2012 under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, which was registered at GUVNL Rajkot Police Station at II-C.R.No.1237 of 2012.

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.8569 of 2013. 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.260 of 2014 .

2.3. The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned 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 learned Trial Court at Exh.7 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.8, 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 08 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.25, 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 learned Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of natural justice. The learned learned learned Trial Court has erroneously came to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record it