The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence linking the accused to the offense.

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 Special Judge, Amreli (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) in Special (Electricity) Case No. 36 of 2009 order dated 29.10.2012, 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. On 23.08.2004, Jayanthilal Hansrajbhai Rangapriya, Deputy Engineer, PGVCL, Amreli Circle, Junior Engineer Alpesh Nanjibhai Kamol, Meter Tester A. H. Vyas and Helper S. R. Raval had gone for checking the electricity connections at Karkoliya village and had visited the house of Sureshbhai Harsurbhai Der at Karkoliya village. They found that the accused was not a consumer of electricity but he was running a flour mill to grind grains and a shop to repair punctures and had illegally joined a yellow colour wire directly to the pole and the low tension line and was using electricity. A 65 year old person was found at the place and he had stated that the shop and the flour mill belonged to the accused and the necessary procedure was done and it was found that the accused had committed theft of electricity of Rs.4,44,248.75 paisa as he had joined a 12.5 HP load motor and the complainant Rakeshkumar Fakirbhai Chaudhary, Deputy Engineer, had filed the complaint at the GEB Police Station under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, which came to be registered at GEB Police Station II-CR No. 897 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, 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. 36 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.4 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.5, 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 08 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.24, 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 Section 135 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 appea