Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CR.A/1621/2010 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
Reserved On : 18/03/2026
Pronounced On : 25/03/2026
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1621 of 2010
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RATHOD NIKUSINH CHAMPAKSINH
Appearance:
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DR BHATT(165) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Electricity Theft and Appellate Review
Act Referred
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.378, S.173, S.379
Headnote
(B) - Section 151 - Cognizance of offences - Requirement of written complaint by competent officer - Junior officer lacking authorization/deputation order to initiate proceedings renders the complaint legally infirm - (Paras 8.4, 8.5)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference - Appellate court shall not substitute its view for that of the trial court if the original decision is reasonable and not afflicted by perversity or manifest illegality - Presumption of innocence remains reinforced after an acquittal - (Paras 11, 13, 14, 15, 16)
(C) Evidence - Burden of proof - Prosecution in criminal proceedings must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt - Failure to establish exclusive possession of the premises or provide documentary evidence of occupancy results in valid acquittal - (Paras 5, 8.6, 8.7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The state challenged an acquittal order concerning allegations of electricity theft. The complainant, a minor technical officer, conducted an inspection and filed a complaint. The trial court acquitted the accused citing lack of authority of the complainant to initiate proceedings and insufficient evidence regarding the accused’s exclusive possession and ownership of the premises where the theft allegedly occurred.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the complaint was not filed by a competent authority as required by the relevant statute. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to provide evidence linking the accused to the specific property via legal ownership or exclusive occupancy. The trial court's evaluation of evidence, including discrepancies in witness testimonies and lack of direct evidence, was found to be just and proper.
Issues: Whether the complainant had the statutory authority to file the complaint, and whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court cannot interfere unless the trial court's reasoning is perverse or based on a misreading of material evidence. The absence of authorized initiation of proceedings and the failure to establish the accused's culpability via necessary documentation necessitates the upholding of the acquittal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Yuvraj Brahmbhatt
For the Respondents: D R Bhatt
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal, dated 17.06.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity) in Special Electricity Case No.14 of 2009, for the offences punishable under Section 135(1)(B) of the Indian Electricity Act, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).
2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the trial Court is that, on 04.10.2008, the complainant, in the capacity of Junior Engineer, UGVCL, raided the premises of the accused in the night and found that the accused was committing theft of electricity; on inspection, it was found that the service wire was illegally connected by linking the phase wire with a red-coloured wire, thereby directly drawing electricity on the load side; therefore, the penalty bill was prepared for Rs.5,130=95 Ps., which was paid by the consumer; since the very consumer had committed theft previously on 07.03.2006 at the same installation, the complaint was filed against the respondent as he was found committing theft for the second time.
3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore, charge-sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Special Court, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Special Court where it was registered as Special (Electricity) Case No.14 of 2009. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses and also produced the following documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment, which are as under:
: ORAL EVIDENCE :
| Sr.No. | Name of witnesses | Exh. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Complainant - Raval Dhyanesh | 7 |
| 2 | Panch - Rathod Bhikhusinh Gulabsinh (Hostile) | 42 |
| 3 | Panch - Kiritkumar Ramaji (Hostile) | 12 |
| 4 | Witness - Patel Prakashbhai Ishwarbhai | 13 |
| 5 | PSO - Rahevar Hitendrasinh Dudharsinh | 14 |
| 6 | Witness - Ramanbhai Joitabhai Patel | 17 |
| 7 | Witness - Chauhan Sureskumar Punabhai | 22 |
| 8 | I.O. - Babubhai Narsangbhai | 26 |
: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE :
| Sr.No. | Particulars of the Documents | Exh. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Inspection report dated 4.10.08 | 8 |
| 2 | Copy of the bill dated 4.10.09 given to the accused | 9 |
| 3 | Original complaint | 10 |
| 4 | Copy of the station diary | 15 |
| 5 | Original depute copy of the investigation | 16 |
| 6 | Copy of the letter for sending the penal bill to the accused | 18 |
| 7 | Copy of the proforma of Annexure-C for calculation of bill dated 4.10.08 | 19 |
| 8 | Annexure C form for calculation of bill dated 7.3.06 | 20 |
| 9 | Copy of the bill dated 7.3.06 given to accused | 21 |
| 10 | Inspection report dated 7.3.2010 | 23 |
| 11 | Rojkam for electricity checking dated 7.3.10 | 24 |
| 12 | Panchanama for scene of offence | 27 |
The defence has examined witness Dahyabhai Mulabhai Chamar vide Exh.30 and has produced the necessary xerox copies of the Assessment-sheet Register vide Exh.31, the Pedigree vide Exh.32 and the Receipt of House Tax vide Exh.33.
5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which they were charged, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Learned APP for the appellant – State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissi
