In appeals against acquittal, the Appellate Court must respect the presumption of innocence unless compelling reasons demonstrate evidence leading to conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

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 4^th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, District Banaskanthat at Deesa (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) in Special Case (Electricity) No.15 of 2013 dated 30.10.2015, whereby, the learned 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’).

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 07.03.2011, R.B.Ninama, Deputy Engineer, UGVCL, Palanpur and other team members had gone to village Moti Dugdol, Taluka Dhanera and had checked the electricity connection of the accused. They found that the accused was a consumer of electricity, but had changed the point of supply and had erected a new line and was using two motors of 37.5 HP. After the necessary procedure, it was found that theft of electricity of Rs.1,89.543.40 paisa was committed by the accused and the complainant Harishkumar Ratilal Kalaswa, Deputy Engineer, Danta filed a complaint under Section 135 of the ELECTRICITY ACT at the GEB Police Station, Sabarmati on 10.03.2011, which came to be registered as G.E.B, Sabarmati Police Station, II-C.R.No.537 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, 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. 15 of 2013.

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 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.6 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.7, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 06 witnesses and produced 09 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.38, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded wherein the accused denied the 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, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 135(1)(b) 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 ca