IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 8 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9071 of 2013 M.P.POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO.LTD Versus BAIJNATH KUSHWAHA Appearance:

Shri Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Vidya Prasad - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER The present petition under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of Special Leave to Appeal against the order of acquittal dated 23.05.2013 passed by Special Court (Electricity Act), Tikamgarh in Special (Complaint) Case No.1446/2010, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent from the offence under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2. The facts of the case in short are that the Officers of the appellant's team investigated the premises of the respondent on 22.04.2007 at about 10.00 AM, they found that the respondent was consuming electricity despite its disconnection due to non-payment of electrical dues by directly connecting the wire with L.T. Service lines, which is punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the respondent. The trial Court has relied on the plea of the respondent and disbelieved the documents/oral evidence of the appellant and overlooked the material on record and passed the order of acquittal of the respondents/accused. Hence, it is prayed that present petition be allowed.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

5. After considering the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Tota Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC 529, when there are two views possible then the view shall be adopted in favour of accused. In the present case, as observed in paragraph 13 of the judgment, the complainant failed to lead clear and cogent evidence with regard to Exhibits P/5 and P/6. No specific evidence was adduced as to by whom, to whom, before whom and at what place/spot the intimation notice was executed upon the respondent. In the absence of such material particulars, the complainant was unable to establish that the statutory notice demanding the remaining amount of the electricity bill was duly served upon the respondent. Further, as noted in paragraph 14 of the judgment, P.W.1 R.K. Jain (Junior Engineer) was unable to furnish any satisfactory explanation as to why in all the proceedings vide Exhibits P/1, P/2, and P/4 identical time was mentioned. This circumstance casts serious doubt on the genuineness and credibility of these documents. Consequently, the said documents suffer from grave suspicion, which materially weakens the case of the complainant.

6. In such circumstances, learned trial court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondent and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. This leave to appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.

Consequently, the MCrC stands dismissed.

(HIMANSHU JOSHI)

JUDGE rv