JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.10.2015, passed by the learned Special Judge and 3rd Additional Session Judge, Jamnagar in Special (GEB) Case No.506/2014, for the offences punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, 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 lower Court is that the case pertains to an inspection conducted on 25.04.2012 at Digvijay Plot, Jamnagar by Mr. A.J. Dave, Deputy Engineer, along with his team. During the inspection, it was found that the respondent, owner of Raviraj Electronic and Atul Auto, had committed theft of electricity by tampering with the M.M.B. seal and bypassing the meter using a wire. It was alleged that the respondent had illegally consumed electricity amounting to 3.5385 kilowatt. Consequently, a supplementary bill of Rs. 1,54,263.18 was issued by the electricity company, which remained unpaid and therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent-accused.

3. After usual 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 came to be registered as Special (GEB) Case No.506 of 2014. 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 witnesses and also produced 7 oral evidence and 17 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under:

Oral Evidences

Documentary Evidences

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 omissions appearing in t