IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the prosecution's failure to establish the respondent's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

(Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.)

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat (original complainant) under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10/12/2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Surendranagar (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Special Case No.136 of 2007, whereby, the learned Special Judge has acquitted the original accused respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (for short “the Act”).

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under :

2.1 The complainant Dy. Engineer, Shri Gajanand Madhubhai Savani of Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., had filed a complaint against respondent accused before Bhavnagar Police Station, vide CR No.II-904/2004 for the alleged offence under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. According to complainant, it is the case of the prosecution that, on 24/08/2004, Dy. Engineer, Shri Gajanand Madhubhai Savani of PGVCL, Dhrangadhra Town Sub Division and Shri K.R. Snehkunj, Dy. Engineer, Circle Office, Surendranagar city had carried out inspection at the premises of Mansukhbhai Amarshibhai Makwana situated in Mayurnagar, Dhragandhra city, who was tenant and occupier of Pradipkumar P. Dave in the presence of his son Deepakbhai. According to complainant, it is the case of prosecution that at the time of inspection, respondent had tempered with meter seal and thereby committed theft of electricity of Rs.1,53,150.08 ps. Therefore, Raiding Officer, had prepared necessary Rojkam, issued inspection report, recovered muddamal meter and produced before GEB Office for the purpose of inspection. Therefore, on the basis of Inspection Report and Rojkam, supplementary bill of Rs.1,53,150.08 ps. was prepared and issued to respondent, which was not paid by him within stipulated time limit and therefore, written complaint was filed before Bhavnagar Police Station for the alleged theft of electricity, vide CR No.II- 904/2004 for the alleged offence under Section 135 of The Indian Electricity Act, 2003.

2.2 The police recorded statement of witnesses, and as there was sufficient evidence connecting respondent with crime produced in this case, charge-sheet was filed before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surendranagar and numbered as Criminal Case No.1211/2004. The offence committed by respondent was absolutely triable by the court of learned Special Judge, the same was committed to the court of learned Special Judge, Surendranagar, which was numbered as Special (Ele.) Case No. 136/2007. Thereafter, respondent was ordered to issue with summons and after service of summons, respondent appeared before the Court, wherein he had not pleaded guilty for the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. Before trial, prosecution had examined complainant, police witnesses and panch witnesses who were supporting the case of prosecution.

2.3 At the end of trial, the learned Judge after appreciating necessary evidence laid dawn by prosecution acquitted the respondent by his judgment and order of acquittal dated 10/12/2009 for the offences with which he was charged.

2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal dated 10/12/2009, passed by the court of learned Special Judge, Surendranagar in Special (Ele.) Case No.136 of 2007, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr.Viral Vyas, appearing on behalf of Mr.Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the respondent – original accused.

4. Learned APP Mr.Brahmbhatt has submitted that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court is contrary to law, evidence on reco