IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1687 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting No ==========================================================

STATE OF GUJARAT Versus ANOPSING @ ANUBHA GAGAJI PINGAL ==========================================================

Appearance:

MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Date : 07/10/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special (GEB) Case No. 13/2009 on 26.07.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section

135 of The Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

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 brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1 On 16.12.2004, the officers of the GEB visited the residence of the accused situated in village Meghpar, Taluka Lalpur, District Jamnagar and found that the accused had directly connected a red color wire to the electricity pole of the low tension line and had taken it to his residence and was directly consuming a total load of 1.375 watts of electricity illegally and had in all committed theft of electricity of Rs. 57,646.49/- paisa. The complaint was filed by Hitesh Lakshmidas Hindocha, Deputy Engineer GEB Kalawad Subdivision at the GEB Police Station Rajkot under Section 135 of the Electricity Act which came to be registered as GEB Police Station II – C.R. No. 817 of 2005.

2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lalpur and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Jamnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special (GEB)

Case No. 13/2009.

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 at Exh. 4 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 5, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4 The prosecution examined 4 witnesses and produced 6 documentary evidence and after the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against him.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the learned Trial Court has not considered the oral and documentary evidences in proper perspective and has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has not considered the evidences produced on record and even though there is nothing on record to prove th