The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and that procedural errors existed in filing the complaint.

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 the order dated 09.08.2012 in Special (GEB) Case No.31 of 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’), whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offence punishable under Section 135 of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

1.1 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 relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. The accused were the consumers of GEB and had consumer No. 87101/55091/6 in their business establishment known as Tulsi Enterprise. On 26.08.2004, the Deputy Engineer- I/c Jamnagar - Mr. J. J. Bhatt and other officers checked the electricity connection of the accused in Tulsi Enterprise and found that they had taken a wire from all the three phases and bypassed the meter and were committing theft of electricity. The due procedure was followed and it was found that theft of electricity of Rs.1,64,179.12/- was committed and on 04.10.2004, the complainant Chandrakant Ramjibhai Patel, Deputy Engineer of Jamnagar Industrial Sub Division filed the complaint under Section 135 of the Indian ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003, which was registered at G.E.B. Police Station being II-C.R.No.1121 of 2004.

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, therefore, after completion of process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Special (GEB) Case No.31 of 2009.

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.4 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh. 5 and 6, 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 four oral evidences and six documentary evidences to bring home charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 27, the further statements 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. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit the accused from all the charges levelled against them.

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 jus