In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court should defer to the trial court's findings unless compelling evidence of manifest error or illegality exists.

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 29.01.2016 in Special (Electricity) Case No.298 of 2014 passed by the learned Special Judge and 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned trial Court’), 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. The accused was in possession of a shop situated near Ram Mandir in Lalpur and was having Consumer No. 82201/04244/1 for consumption of electricity and was a consumer of Gujarat Electricity Board. The accused had illegally and unauthorizedly tapped the electric pole in the main service line and had joined the same in his panel and had bypassed the meter so that the consumption was not recorded in the meter and on 10-08-2011, when the members of the checking squad of Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL) raided the place, they found that the theft of electricity had taken place and the accused had consumed electricity worth Rs.1,42,129.40/-. The complainant Gulamrasul Patel, Deputy Engineer, filed the complaint under Section 135 of the Indian ELECTRICITY ACT 2003, which was registered at G.U.VN.L Police Station II-C.R.No.1659 of 2011.

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 (Electricity) Case No.298 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 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.

2.4. The prosecution produced five oral evidences and fourteen evidences to bring home charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 38, 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. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on his behalf and state that a false case has been filed against him. 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 leveled against him.

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 t