The acquittal was upheld due to insufficient evidence and procedural lapses in the prosecution's case, reaffirming the principle of presumption of innocence in criminal law.

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 impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge, Khambhaliya (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) in Special (G.E.B.) Case No. 46 of 2010 on 15.06.2012, 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’).

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. On 24.01.2006, the officers of the Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “PGVCL”) checked the house of the accused and found that she was not a consumer of electricity, but had directly connected a wire in the low tension electric line of PGVCL and was using electricity in her house. After the due procedure, it was found that she had utilized 265 watts of electricity and had committed theft of electricity of Rs.29,453.49 paisa. The complainant Virjibhai Govindbhai Dholaria, Deputy Engineer, Bhandwad Sub-Division at the PGVCL Police Station, Rajkot filed the complaint under Section 135 of the Indian ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003, which came to be registered as PGVCL Police Station to C.R.No. 698 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. 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 (Electricity) Case No. 46 of 2010.

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 and a charge was framed by the 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 examined 04 witnesses and produced 11 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.28, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence and refused to step into the witness box and lead evidence. 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 Act.

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 Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The learned Trial Court has erroneously came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused though there are ample and cogent evidence to connect the accused with the crime and the offence registered against him. The learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record it its true spirit. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, invalid, improper, perverse and bad