Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1618

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. Pinto, J.
State Of Gujarat – Appellant
Versus
Shaukathusen Abdulrehman Chanki – Respondent
R/Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2013
Decided On : 27-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms C.M.Shah, APP
For the Respondent: Mr M M Tirmizi

The presumption of innocence in criminal jurisprudence means the appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless evidence shows clear insolvency or injustice in the trial court's decision.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Electricity Act, 2003 - Section 135(1)

(B) - Appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused for theft of electricity - Learned Trial Court acquitted the accused citing reasonable doubts surrounding the prosecution's evidence. (Paras 1, 5, 9 and 10)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumptions of innocence and the findings of the trial court unless there is manifest illegality or perversity. Evidence presented by prosecution showed contradictions and raised doubts about the charges. (Paras 6, 8 and 10)

Facts of the case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused tampered with an electricity meter, resulting in substantial theft. Multiple witnesses were called, but many were deemed hostile or provided evidence that undermined the prosecution's case. The meter was tested but revealed discrepancies in evidence concerning its seal and status.

Findings of Court:
The learned Trial Court found significant contradictions in the evidence, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: The key issues included whether the prosecution established the connection between the accused and the crime, and the sufficiency of evidence presented to support the charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court upheld that doubts in the prosecution's case favored the accused, emphasizing that reasonable evidence is necessary to challenge an acquittal. No manifest errors or irregularities were found in the trial court's judgment.

Result: Appeal dismissed; judgment of acquittal confirmed.

Table of Content
1. appeal filed against acquittal under crpc. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments presented by the appellant. (Para 3)
3. court's reasoning and review of evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. guidelines on reviewing acquittal. (Para 7)
5. appreciation of prosecution evidence and contradictions. (Para 8 , 9)
6. court's conclusion on the legitimacy of acquittal. (Para 10)
7. final order confirming acquittal. (Para 11 , 12)

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 24.02.2011 in Special (Electricity) Case No.26 of 2010 passed by the learned Special Judge and 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, District Panchmahal at Godhra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 135(1)(B) of the Indian 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. The complainant Kiranbhai Balchandra Garg was working as a Deputy Engineer in the Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (MGVCL), Halol Rural Office and on 08.04.2008, he had gone along with Checking Officer, B.H.Chaudhary and the Deputy Engineer of the Checking Squad for checking electricity connections in village Baska, Taluka Halol, District Panchmahals. On checking Consumer No.07307/10451/2 of the accused, Shaukathusen Abdul Rehman Chanki, they found the meter to be suspicious and the meter was packed and brought to the laboratory for checking. On 24-06-2008, the meter was checked in the presence of the consumer and it was found that the four plastic body seals of the meter were tampered with and the recording of the units of electricity was obstructed and a bill of theft of electricity of Rs.2,30,969.20 and compounding charges of Rs.12,000/-, and in all, a bill of Rs.2,42,969.20 was given to the accused on 4-07-2008. The bill was not paid by the consumer and complainant Kiranbhai Bhalchandra Garg filed the complaint at the MGVCL Police Station, which was registered MGVCL Police Station, Gotri, Vadodara I-CR No.1110 of 2008 under Section 135 (B) of the Indian ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003.

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.26 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. A charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.3 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.4, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced 10 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. 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, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 135(1)(B) of the Indian ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003.

3. Being