An appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless it finds that the trial court’s reasoning is unreasonable or not supported by evidence, maintaining a presumption of innocence for the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (GEB) Case No. 202 of 2014 on 30.01.2017 whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Indian ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

1.1 During the pendency of this appeal, the respondent No. 2 expired and hence the appeal qua the respondent No. 2 was abated by an order dated 26.06.2025.

1.2 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused in the rank and file as they 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 26-08-2004, the electricity meter of Tulsi Enterprise Industries, which belonged to the accused, was removed and thereafter, on 1-10- 2004, the officers of the Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as PGVCL) checked the electricity connection of Tulsi Industries and found that the accused had directly joined a black- colour cable wire on the low-tension line of PGVCL and were consuming electricity. After the due procedure, it was found that theft of electricity of Rs.8,24,274/- was committed by the accused and the complainant Chandrakant Ramjibhai Patel, Deputy Engineer, PGVCL, Industrial Sub- Division, Jamnagar filed a complaint at the GEB Police Station, Rajkot Zone on 6-10-2004, which was registered at GEB Police Station vide II-C.R.No.1123 of 2004.

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 was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Jamnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was registered as Special (GEB) Case No. 202 of 2014.

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 at Exh. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh.4 and Exh.5, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4 The prosecution produced five oral and seven documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 37, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused was heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against him.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on