HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.513 OF 2020

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant, aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Electricity Sessions Case PCS No.3/2011, dated 14.02.2020, for the offence under Section 135(1)(b) of the Indian electricity Act, 2003.

2. The case of the defacto complainant, who was the Inspector of Police, PS Vigilance & APTS Team-III, Hyderabad, is that on 12.01.2009 at about 12.30 hours, he, along with 2 others, inspected the premises of the respondent/accused. Inspection was done on service connection bearing No.CZ-007583 of Best Bakery, in which they found extra pressing marks and seal bits building marks on the meter seal box, and seals were tampered with. In the presence of the accused, the meter was taken and sent to MRT lab for testing. It was found that the accused had indulged in tampering with the meter box seals and thereby committed theft of energy, resulting in an estimated loss of Rs.

6,28,383/-.

3. Learned Special Judge examined the witnesses PWs.1 to 5, of whom PWs.1 and 2 were the persons who conducted the inspection, and PW.3 is the person who tested the electric meters. Exs.P1 to P8 were also marked during evidence.

4. The learned Special Judge found that a person named Ashok, whose name was reflected in the proceedings, was a worker of Best Bakery where the inspection had taken place. Further, the signature of the said Ashok was taken, but he was not examined during the course of the trial. According to PWs.1 and 2, the accused was present during the inspection; however it is not clear as to why the signatures of the accused were not taken on the inspection notes, while the signatures of one Ashok were taken.

5. The learned Special Judge further found that the Investigation Officer found that there was no document to show that M.O.1-the meter was installed in the Best Baker premises where the inspection had taken place. One Ashok and one Mohd.Sultan, who according to PWs.1 and 2 were present during inspection, were not examined. No reason is given as to why the signatures of the accused were not taken on the inspection notes.

6. In Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and another, [(2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 536], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court’s view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when the evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

7. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh,, [(2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 450] the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled principles of law and the powers of appellate Court in reversing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as follows:

“70. In the light of the above, the High Court and other appellate Courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of Judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court’s acquittal if it has “very substantial and compelling reasons” for doing so.

A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have “very substantial and compelling reasons” to discard the trial court’s decision. “Very substantial and compelling reasons” exist when:

i) The trial court’s conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong:

ii) The trial court’s decision was based on an erroneous view of law;

iii) The trial court’s judgment is likely to result in “grave miscarriage of justice”;

iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;

v) The trial court’s judgment wa