IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1406 of 2008 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI ========================================================

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

CHAUDHARY SHANKERBHAI KESHARBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================

Appearance:

MR. YOGENDRA Thakore(3975) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR. ROHAN H. RAWAL APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 02/12/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellant is the accused of the proceedings, conducted before the learned Special Judge, Mehsana in Special Electricity Case No.54 of 2007 under Section 135(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The conviction order was passed on 24.03.2008 sentencing the appellant-accused for nine months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.30,429/- with a default stipulation that in failure to pay, further seven months rigorous imprisonment has to be undergone. Benefit of set off was granted under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’). The endorsement of the Nazir on the judgment shows that the accused had deposited the fine amount of Rs.30,429/- on the very same day of the judgment.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction, the appellant is before this Court under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that the order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Mehsana is contrary to the provisions of law and against the evidence on record. It is contended in the grounds inter alia that the order of conviction and sentence is against the weight of evidence on record. The prosecution had not examined any independent witness, though available. The Officers of UGVCL are the prosecution witnesses, who cannot be considered as independent and their evidence would create doubt on their own proceedings. One of the ground raised is that the signature, which has been shown in the investigation report Exh.9 was subsequently taken. The Trial Court has erred in putting implicit reliance on the prosecution evidence while holding the appellant guilty of offence alleged to have been committed.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Yogendra Thakore for the appellant-accused, referring to the provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, submitted that the case against the present appellant-accused was totally bad in law. Advocate Mr. Thakore submitted that the prosecution was required to prove that the accused was the customer of UGVCL or was the occupier of the premises, where the meter of UGVCL in the name of customer was installed and the use of the electricity was by the accused as an occupier of the house.

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Thakore submitted that the witness of UGVCL had failed to prove the ownership of the house and even failed to prove the allegation of tampering with the meter or using loop connections or other devices or methods to interfere with the flow of the electric current, thereby stealing the electricity.

3.2 Referring to the depositions of the witnesses, Advocate Mr. Thakore submitted that it was a bulk raid conducted in the area of village Sangthada, Kheralu Taluka and the Officers of the UGVCL had to show their work and therefore, without any proper verification, the complaint had been lodged. The inspection report records the name of consumer as Choudhary Kesharbhai Dalabhai, while signature of the present appellant-accused was taken on the inspection report. Advocate Mr. Thakore submitted that it was the duty of the UGVCL Officer to have inquired about the consumer himself, but had failed to do so. Advocate Mr. Thakore stated that the inspection report rather states that the theft is by the customer, while the record clearly proves that the present appellant- accused is not the customer of the electricity connection, which had bee