In appeal against acquittal, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants affirmation of the trial court's judgment.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned and Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge , Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Electricity Case No. 33/2009 on 31.05.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of The Indian ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003.

1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1 The complainant - Arunkumar Natwarlal Sheth was working as Deputy Engineer, UGVCL Mansa Sub Division and on 17.06.2009, Junior Engineer – J. A. Damor along with helpers T. N. Rathore, K. A. Damore, B. B. Patel, K. J. Thakore and P. S. Asari had gone for checking the electricity connections in Mansa Sub Division. The accused was not a consumer of electricity of UGVCL but had directly taken a connection from the LT Line with a 2.5 mm yellow color 25 meter wire and was committing theft of electricity. After the due procedure was done, a bill of theft of electricity of Rs. 9223.94/- was given on 18.06.2009 to the accused but the same was not paid and hence, the complainant filed the complaint which was registered at GEB AEC Police Station, Surat II – C.R No. 274 of 2009 under Section 135(1A) of the Indian ELECTRICITY ACT , 2003.

2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Special Court, Gandhinagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Electricity Case No. 33/2009.

2.3 The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 8 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 9, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4 The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and produced 8 documentary evidence and after the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against them.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the learned Trial Court has not considered the oral and documentary evidences in proper perspective and has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has not considered the evidences produced on record and even though there is nothing on record to prove the charge against the accused, the learned Trial Court h