The appellate court must uphold an acquittal unless there is clear evidence of illegality or error in the trial court's judgment; it cannot reverse an acquittal merely on the possibility of a different conclusion.

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, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) in Special (G.E.B.) Case No. 54 of 2009 order dated 19.07.2012, 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 19-01-2006, the Officers of the Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (hereinaftere referred to as ‘the PGVCL’) went for checking to the residential house of the accused situated in Machchu Beraja village and found that the accused was not a consumer of electricity, but he had tapped the power line and joined a yellow colour cable wire to the low tension line with a load of 520 watt and was illegally consuming electricity. After the due procedure, it was found that theft of electricity of Rs.34,279.66 paisa was committed by the accused and the complainant Vithalbhai Gordhanbhai Markana, Deputy Engineer, PGVCL, filed the complaint at the GEB Police Station, Rajkot Zone on 17-11-2006 under Section 135 of the Act, which came to be registered at GEB Police Station, Rajkot Zone, I-CR No.1077 of 2006.

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. 54 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 examined 03 witnesses and produced 11 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.22, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded wherein the accused denied the entire 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 was pleased acquit 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 the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has erred in acquittin