In appeals against acquittal, the court must show compelling reasons to overturn the acquittal, favoring the principle of presumption of innocence and the need for conclusive evidence.

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 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Electricity), Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) dated 13.04.2010 in Special (Electricity) Case No.11 of 2009 , whereby, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 135(1)(B) 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 complainant Ramanbhai Joitabhai Patel was working as Deputy Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘GEB’), Sub-Division Vijapur and the accused was a consumer of electricity of GEB and was given Consumer No.21701/01137/9. On 24-01-2008 at around 7.30am, Junior Engineer M.R.Patel, A.R.Solanki and Lineman M.G.Katara, on the instructions of the complainant Ramanbhai Joitabhai Patel, had gone for checking of electricity connections in Vijapur town and had checked the electricity connection of the accused. It was found that the accused had cut the service line, which was coming from the electricity connection of single phase meter, and taken it to the main switch in the bathroom and had directly connected the electricity connection by-passing the meter by a 1/18 red color wire. The accused was committing theft of electricity and after the due procedure, it was found that a theft of electricity of Rs.11,562.73 paise was committed, and as earlier too, on 18-06- 2005, the accused was caught committing theft of electricity, the complainant filed a complaint, which came to be registered as Sabarmati GEB Police Station, II-C.R.No.105 of 2008 under Section 135 of the Indian ELECTRICITY ACT .

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, a 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, Mehsana and the same was registered as Special (Electricity) Case No.11 of 2009.

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 was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.5 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.6, 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 05 witnesses and has produced 15 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh32, 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(1)(B) of the ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and