In acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence remains unless the trial court's judgment is proven perverse or illegal, emphasizing the necessity for the prosecution to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned and Special Judge and 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special (GEB) Case No. 297/2014 on 29.09.2015, 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” 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 10.01.2006, D. K. Jethwa - Junior Engineer, Industrial Sub-Division PGVCL, Jamnagar, M. J. Parmar - Helper, Industrial Sub-Division PGVCL, Jamnagar and M. H. Pancholi - Helper, Industrial Sub-Division PGVCL, Jamnagar had checked the house of the accused at Khamirana village and they found that the accused had fixed a yellow colour service wire to the low tension electricity line on the pole and with a black colour cable had joined the submersible motor and was using electricity for his house and the field. After the due procedure, it was found that the accused had committed theft of electricity of Rs. 73,958.75/- and the complainant – Harjibhai Shamjibhai Dudhagara - Deputy Engineer, PGVCL Rural Sub-Division Jamnagar filed the complaint under Section 135 of the Indian ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 at the PGVCL Rajkot Zone Police Station which came to be registered as PGVCL Police Station, Rajkot Zone, II – C.R. No. 393 of 2006.

2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Jamnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special (GEB) Case No. 297/2014.

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

2.4 The prosecution examined 3 witnesses and produced 9 documentary evidence and after the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against them.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the learned Trial Court has not considered the oral and documentary evidences in proper perspective and has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has not considered the evidences produced on record and even though there is nothing on record to prove the charge against the accused, the learned Trial Court has disbelieved the case o