Table of Content
1. background of electricity theft allegation and the trial court's grounds for acquittal. (Para 1 , 2)
2. contention regarding the necessity of notice and the validity of evidence. (Para 3 , 4)
3. evaluation of prosecution evidence, focusing on the lack of independent witnesses and failure to prove chain of custody. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. application of the 'plausible view' doctrine to limit interference in acquittal appeals. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. final dismissal of the acquittal appeal. (Para 17)

` `

Judgment on Board

` `

1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed by the complainant against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.04.2019 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act) Durg, in Special Criminal (Electricity) Case No.937 of 2013, whereby the respondent-accused has been acquitted from the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short, The Act, 2003).

` `

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 09.06.2011 a team of search party consists of the officers of Electricity Department inspected and conducted a raid in the house of the respondent and found theft of electricity and found the respondent illegally and unauthorizedly using the electricity through his electricity service connection No.1000253539/52-07-206463. On being testing of its load, the deficit load was found instead of its proper load. The seal of the meter was dismantled and the respondent by tampering the electricity meter using the electricity unauthorizedly. Report was prepared on the spot in presence of the witnesses and loss to the tune of Rs.2,33,235/- was assessed and demand note was sent to the respondent for that amount. When the respondent submitted his reply on 24.06.2011, the officers of electricity department considered his reply and final assessment of theft of electricity was assessed to the tune of Rs.1,88,237/- and bill was raised against the respondent. Since the respondent accused was found in electricity theft, a complaint under Section 135 of the Act, 2003 was filed by the the complainant before trial court. The trial court registered the complaint case and framed charge against the respondent and after recording evidence of the complainant witnesses, the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded and after hearing the parties, the respondent has been acquitted from the alleged offence giving them benefit of doubt holding that complainant has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt no notice was served upon the respondent as required under Section 100(4) CrPC, 135(3) of the Act, 2003 as well as Rule 7(4) of the Electricity Rules, 2006 (in short, The Rules, 2006). While acquitting the respondent, the trial court also observed that subject electricity meter though was sent for its examination to expert committee, however, the complainant has failed to prove that the said meter was kept in safe custody after its seizure, and therefore, the report extracted from the said meter is also doubtful. The said judgment of acquittal is under challenge in the present acquittal appeal.

` ... and so on for all paragraphs. * *Handling Quotes (Sub-paras):* Para 13: `

13. Applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as under:-` `

"8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all."

` `` * *Ending:* `

Click Here to Read the rest of this document