The court ruled that the acquittal of one accused due to defective investigation requires similar treatment for other co-accused lacking sufficient evidence for conviction.

JUDGEMENT

1. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, Narmada at Rajpipla dated 30.11.2017 in Special Electricity Case No. 25 of 2017.

2. Four persons were tried by the Sessions Court for having committed offences punishable under Section 136 (1)(a) of the Electricity Act , 2003, Sections 379 and 413 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code . The names of four accused who were tried are :- (i) Rajkumar alias Pappu Deepnarayan Vishwakarma, (ii) Shrikeshsing Nandkumasing Rajput, (iii) Ashwinbhai Shankarbhai Patel and (iv) Maheboob Hussaein Churmali.

3. The accused No.3 – Ashwinbhai Shankarbhai Patel is acquitted by the trial Court. The said acquittal is not under challenge. Other three accused are convicted. The details with regard to conviction and sentence are as under :

3.1 The accused Nos.1 and 2 are convicted for having committed offence under Section 136 of the Electricity Act , 2003 and Sections 379 & 413 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code .

3.2 The accused No.4 is convicted for having committed offence under Section 136 of the Electricity Act , 2003 and Sections 413 & 414 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code .

3.3 Different sentences are awarded for different convictions.

For the conviction under Section 136 of the Electricity Act , all the three convicts are ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three years. For the conviction under Section 379 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code , the accused Nos.1 and 2 are ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for three years.

For the conviction under Sections 413 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code , all the accused are ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for five years. All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The effect thereof is that, each of the three convicts is ordered to serve the maximum sentence of five years in this sessions case. Fine is also imposed and in default thereof further simple imprisonment is also ordered.

4. The first of the above noted two appeals is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2. The second is filed by accused No.4. Both these appeals were earlier admitted by this Court.

5. It is noted that, the session case from which these two appeals arise, was one of twenty five cases being Electricity Case Nos.1 of 2017 to 25 of 2017, since there were twenty five different FIRs qua which separate electricity cases were registered and simultaneous but separate trials were conducted. On facts, all those twenty five trials were identical. In all twenty five cases, the details qua acquittal of accused No.3 and conviction of rest of the three accused and sentence is the same. The date of judgment in all twenty five cases is also the same being 30.11.2017. As noted above, the above noted two appeals are arising from one of such twenty five electricity cases.

6.1 Before the merits of the appeals are examined, it needs to be noted that, the application for suspension of sentence qua all the three appellants was allowed by this Court, details of which are as under :

6.2 The sentence qua accused No.4 (Maheboob Hussaein Churmali) was suspended by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2018 on certain conditions, including on condition of payment of Rs.20,000/- in each case. In other words, on payment of total Rs.5,00,000/- (since there are twenty five cases). The said appellant is thus on bail.

6.3 The sentence qua accused Nos.1 and 2 was suspended by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2018, princip