In appeals against acquittal, the presumption of innocence reinforces the need for compelling evidence to overturn a trial court's decision.

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 and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) in Special (G.E.B.) Case No. 364 of 2014 dated 30.09.2015, 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 Imran Pan Centre situated on Val Sura road in Jamnagar and the accused was not a consumer of electricity. On 08.05.2010, Deputy Engineer Hasmukhbhai Popatlbhai Dudhagara of Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PGVCL’) checked ‘Imran Pan Centre’ and found that the accused had joined a yellow colour wire directly to the electric line of PGVCL and was using 1.350 watts of electricity and had committed theft of electricity of Rs. 40,831.59 paisa. After the due procedure, the complaint was filed by Johny Babulal Saxena, Deputy Engineer Sub-Division, Bedeshwar Valsura, Jamnagar at the GUVNL Police Station, Rajkot Zone on 11.10.2012, which came to be registered at GUVNL Police Station, Rajkot Zone, II-CR No.1238 of 2012.

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 (G.E.B.) Case No. 364 of 2014.

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 and 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 examined 05 witnesses and produced 12 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.29, 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 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 th