Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Arjunsinh Mulrajsinh Jadeja on 31 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 140 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
à°
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
ARJUNSINH MULRAJSINH JADEJA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.DARSHAN A. DAVE(7921) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 31/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant- State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal
under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated
22.09.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, Khambhalia
(hereinafter be referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Special
(GEB) No.65 of 2010 whereby the trial Court has acquitted
the respondent accused from the charges under Section 135
of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Page 1 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on
22.06.2006, the complainant, along with Helper Shri S.S.
Samani and officers Shri D.R. Babaria and Shri V.K. Vanvi,
carried out an inspection at the premises of the respondent
situated at Village Gorakhadi, Taluka Jamjodhpur, near Seva
Sahakari Mandali Ltd.
2.1 During the inspection, it was found that the respondent
had obtained an illegal direct connection from the low-tension
electricity line for operating his flour mill, thereby committing
theft of electricity. The raiding party prepared the inspection
report, seized the muddamal wire, and produced the same
before the GEB Office. On the basis of the inspection report, a
supplementary assessment bill was prepared and served upon
the respondent. As the respondent failed to regularize the
offence in accordance with law, the complainant lodged a
complaint before the Police Inspector, GEB Police Station,
Rajkot, which came to be registered as C.R. No. II-195/2006
for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity
Act. The investigation was thereafter entrusted to PSI Shri
G.K. Vala.
2.2 During the course of investigation, the Investigating
Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, drew the
necessary panchnama, and, upon finding sufficient evidence
connecting the respondent with the offence, filed a charge-
sheet before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Jamjodhpur, where it was registered as Criminal Case
No. 95 of 2010.
Page 2 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
2.3 Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of
the learned Special Judge, the case was committed to the
Court of the learned Special Judge, Khambhalia, where it was
registered as Special (GEB) Case No. 65 of 2010.
2.4 Thereafter, summons were issued to the respondent. Upon
service of summons, the respondent appeared before the
Special Court. The charge was framed against him, to which
he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Before the trial
Court, to prove its case the prosecution examined six
witnesses and led 13 documentary evidences.
2.5 After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
on record, the learned Special Judge, by judgment and order
dated 22.09.2012, acquitted the respondent of the charge
under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Being
aggrieved by the said judgment and order of acquittal, the
appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned APP for the appellant and
Mr.Darshan Dave, learned counsel for the respondent.
3.1 Leaned APP has submitted that the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law, the
evidence on record and the settled principles governing
appreciation of evidence. The impugned judgment is therefore
liable to be quashed and set aside. She has submitted that the
Trial Court has based the impugned judgment on unwarranted
inferences and presumptions not supported by the facts or the
provisions of law. She has submitted that the Trial Court
Page 3 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
failed to appreciate that the prosecution had led reliable oral
and documentary evidence establishing that the respondent
had illegally obtained a direct connection from the low-tension
electricity line and committed theft of electricity punishable
under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. The finding that the
prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
is erroneous.
3.2 Leaned APP has submitted that the Trial Court failed to
properly appreciate the evidence of the complainant, PW-1
Dineshbhai Ravjibhai Ghadiya (Exh.8), who proved the
inspection, preparation of the inspection report, seizure of the
muddamal wire, issuance of the supplementary bill and
lodging of the complaint. His testimony remained consistent
and fully supported the prosecution case. She has submitted
that the Trial Court erred in discarding the evidence of PW-2
Sureshbhai Alabhai Chavda (Exh.13) and PW-3 Pababhai
Virambhai Gadhvi (Exh.15) merely because they were panch
witnesses, without considering the evidence as a whole. She
has submitted that the Trial Court failed to properly
appreciate the evidence of PW-4 Sureshchandra Shantilal
Samani (Exh.17), a member of the checking squad, who
corroborated the inspection, detection of the illegal direct
connection and operation of the flour mill by the respondent.
3.3 Leaned APP has submitted that the Trial Court also failed
to properly appreciate the evidence of PW-5 Kiritsinh
Ranvirsinh Chudasama (Exh.23) and PW-6 Investigating
Officer Gajendrasinh Kalubha Vala (Exh.29), who proved the
registration of the FIR, investigation and filing of the charge-
Page 4 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
sheet. She has submitted that the Trial Court erred in holding
that the complainant was not competent to lodge the
complaint under Section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for
want of an authorization certificate and further erred in
holding that there was non-compliance with the provisions of
Section 135 of the Electricity Act. She has submitted that the
Trial Court committed an error in holding that the prosecution
failed to establish the respondent’s ownership or possession of
the premises and in drawing an adverse inference merely
because certain ownership documents were not recovered.
She has submitted that the Trial Court further erred in
holding that non-recovery of the muddamal wire, absence of a
recovery panchnama and non-examination of the
photographer were fatal to the prosecution case, despite the
cogent oral evidence of the checking squad and the
Investigating Officer.
3.4 Leaned APP has submitted that the Trial Court failed to
appreciate that there was no evidence of any personal
animosity or motive on the part of the members of the
checking squad to falsely implicate the respondent. Their
evidence could not have been discarded merely because they
were officials of the Electricity Board. She has submitted that
the Trial Court also erred in treating the complaint as belated
and in relying upon irrelevant technicalities while ignoring the
reliable and trustworthy prosecution evidence. She has
submitted that the Trial Court misapplied the legal principles
and authorities relied upon by the defence and consequently
recorded findings which are perverse, contrary to the
Page 5 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
evidence on record and unsustainable in law. She has
submitted that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for
acquitting the respondent are illegal, improper, perverse and
contrary to the evidence on record. The prosecution had
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, yet the respondent
was acquitted.
3.5 Leaned APP has submitted that the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal being illegal, erroneous and against the
weight of evidence deserves to be quashed and set aside, and
the respondent deserves to be convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Darshan Dave, learned advocate for
the respondent accused has supported the judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The learned
advocate appearing for the respondent-accused submitted
that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by
the Trial Court is just, legal, and proper and does not call for
any interference by this Court. It was submitted that the Trial
Court has rightly appreciated the oral as well as documentary
evidence available on record and has recorded findings based
on proper appreciation of facts and settled principles of law.
4.1 Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that
the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt. He has submitted that the findings
recorded by the Trial Court are based on cogent reasons and
are neither arbitrary nor contrary to law.
Page 6 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
4.2 Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that in
an appeal against acquittal, unless the findings recorded by
the Trial Court are perverse, illegal, or wholly unsupported by
evidence, interference by the Appellate Court is unwarranted.
In the present case, no such infirmity, illegality, or perversity
is demonstrated in the impugned judgment and order.
Therefore, it was urged that the appeal deserves to be
dismissed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
deserves to be confirmed.
5. I have perused the relevant documents and material placed
on record. I have also gone through the judgment and order
passed by the trial Court as well as the record and
proceedings.
6. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order, as well
as the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for
both sides, the issues that arises for consideration before this
Court are as under:-
Whether the Trial Court committed any error in passing
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal?
Whether the Trial Court, while appreciating the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses, has committed any error of
law or fact?
Whether the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
suffers from any illegality or perversity?
7. In view of the above-stated submissions and upon perusal of
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, as well as the
evidence recorded by the Trial Court, it is appropriate to first
Page 7 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
examine the facts of the case.
8. On 22.06.2006, PW-1, along with the helpers, namely, S.S.
Samani, D.R. Babariya, and V.K. Vanvi, who were working in
the Jamjodhpur Sub-Division, visited the premises situated at
Village Gorakhadi, Taluka Jamjodhpur, District Jamnagar.
During the inspection, the checking squad found that the
respondent was running a flour mill in the said premises. It
was further stated that the flour mill was owned by the
present respondent.
9. It was also found that there was no authorised electricity
connection or electricity meter installed at the premises.
However, the respondent was operating the flour mill by using
an unauthorised three-phase electricity connection. For this
purpose, approximately 15 metres of black electric cable had
been directly connected to the electricity pole with the aid of
other apparatus. Thus, the respondent was found to have
dishonestly abstracted and unauthorisedly used electrical
energy for operating the flour mill. Consequently, the
respondent was charged with the alleged offence punishable
under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
10. PW-1 prepared the calculation sheet and also issued a
supplementary bill. On the basis thereof, the complainant
forwarded a written complaint dated 14.03.2006 through
Registered A.D. post to the concerned police station, i.e.,
P.G.V.C.L. Police Station, Rajkot. The same was received on
18.03.2006 and was registered as C.R. No. II-195 of 2006.
11. On perusal of the cross-examination of PW-1, it emerges
Page 8 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
that the complainant had not visited the premises of the
respondent, nor had he personally seen the respondent’s
premises. He further admitted before the Trial Court that the
Vigilance Officer and the Head Office of P.G.V.C.L. are
situated at Vadodara, where the Vigilance Officer was present
at the relevant time. He also admitted that, before registration
of the FIR, as required under the Act, PW-1 had not obtained
any authorisation letter as contemplated under Section 151 of
the Electricity Act, which reads as under:
“Section 151. (Cognizance of offences):
No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this
Act except upon a complaint in writing made by Appropriate
Government or Appropriate Commission or any of their officer
authorized by them or a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical
Inspector or licensee or the generating company, as the case may
be, for this purpose.
[Provided that the court may also take cognizance of an offence
punishable under this Act upon a report of a police officer filed
under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Provided further that a special court constituted under section 153
shall be competent to take cognizance of an offence without the
accused being committed to it for trial.][151A. For the purposes of investigation of an offence punishable
under this Act, the police officer shall have all the powers as
provided in Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
151B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, an offence punishable under sections 135 to 140
or section 150 shall be cognizable and non-bailable.”
12. Even the PW-1 has not produced any authorisation even
before the Court. Whereas, PW-4, being a helper, namely Mr.
Samani, who had accompanied the complainant at the time of
inspection of the premises, has stated that the inspection was
carried out in his presence. He has further stated that they
had taken photographs of the place of the incident, prepared a
Page 9 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
panchnama, and seized the cable. However, he has referred to
the colour of the cable as red and black, whereas the original
complainant, PW-1, has referred to the cable as being black in
colour.
13. Now, in his cross-examination, the witness deposed before
the Court that they had not prepared any panchnama at the
place of the incident, nor had they collected any records. Even
his statement was recorded after about 10 months from the
date of the occurrence, i.e., on 04.12.2006. He has also
admitted before the Court that they had not obtained the
signatures of the panchas, nor had they handed over the
muddamal, i.e., the electric cable and other apparatus, to the
Investigating Officer.
14. Now, looking to the evidence of the Investigating Officer,
PW-6, it appears that after the investigation was handed over
to him, he investigated the offence and filed the charge-sheet
against the present respondent. However, in his cross-
examination, he admitted before the Court that he had not
drawn any panchnama in the presence of the panchas at the
place of the incident. He also admitted that he had not sought
any clarification regarding the delay in lodging the FIR. He
has also stated before the Court that the muddamal seized by
the complainant was not produced before him, nor had he
collected it, nor had he produced it before the Court, nor had
he recorded any further statements of the witnesses. In light
of the above-referred facts, and after considering the
arguments of both sides, the Trial Court framed the issue in
Paragraph 7 and recorded the reasons in Paragraph 10
Page 10 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
onwards.
15. Now, if we look at the provisions of Section 151 referred
to above, it was a mandatory requirement that unless and
until the person had authorisation from the officer or the
authority as described under Section 151 of the Electricity
Act, no Court shall take cognizance.
16. In the present case also, after considering the said facts,
the Trial Court has recorded in Paragraph Nos. 19, 20, and 21
that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence with
respect to the provisions of Section 151 of the Electricity Act.
The Trial Court has also considered the settled legal
principles enunciated by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex
Court, more particularly those referred to in Paragraph No.
29 onwards. Even in Paragraph No. 33, the Trial Court has
referred to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of State of Gujarat vs. Karshan Chakubhai Parmar,
dated 29.07.2007, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 969 of 2009,
wherein the Division Bench held and observed as under:
6.1 The trial Court after appreciation of the evidence found that
there is no documentary evidence of the ownership of the shop. No
independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
Panchnama was not prepared by the G.E.B. Officer. The witnesses
who were examined are the interested witnesses. There is delay in
lodging the complaint and sanction from the competent authority
was not obtained for lodging the complaint. In this fact situation
the Special Court has found that there are serious lacuna in the
prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to establish the
case against the respondent. The prosecution has also failed to
prove that the same object which was produced by the prosecution
was used for the alleged commission of power theft. Therefore the
trial court has given the benefit of doubt to the accused and we do
not find any reason to interfere with
the said finding.”
Page 11 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
17. After considering the above, the Court came to the
conclusion that, in the absence of any evidence produced by
the prosecution, the prosecution miserably failed to establish
the case against the present respondent. It was further
observed, while referring to the judgments in Paragraph Nos.
34, 35, 36, and 37, that the prosecution had even otherwise
failed to establish the case against the present respondent, as
it had neither collected the muddamal nor drawn any
panchnama of the place of the incident, nor even examined
whether the present respondent was the owner of the
premises in question.
18. On the contrary, the panchnama shows that the present
respondent was not the owner of the premises in question and
that he was a tenant of the said premises. The original owner
of the premises was Jagabhai Mayabhai, who had given the
premises on rent to the present respondent. However, no rent
receipt or rent agreement was seized by the Investigating
Officer during the course of the investigation, nor was any
such document produced before the Court. Therefore, the
prosecution failed to establish whether the present
respondent was the actual occupier of the subject property
where the alleged theft of electricity was found and on the
basis of which a complaint was lodged against the present
respondent under Section 135 of the Electricity Act.
19. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer the provisions of
Section 135 of the Electricity Act, which read as under:
“Section 135. (Theft of Electricity): — 1[(1) Whoever, dishonestly, —
(a) taps, makes or causes to be made any connection with
overhead, underground or under water lines or cables, or service
wires, or service facilities of a licensee or supplier as the case mayPage 12 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
be; or
(b) tampers a meter, installs or uses a tampered meter, current
reversing transformer, loop connection or any other device or
method which interferes with accurate or proper registration,
calibration or metering of electric current or otherwise results in a
manner whereby electricity is stolen or wasted; or
(c) damages or destroys an electric meter, apparatus, equipment,
or wire or causes or allows any of them to be so damaged or
destroyed as to interfere with the proper or accurate metering of
electricity,
(d) uses electricity through a tampered meter; or (e) uses
electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage of
electricity was authorised,
so as to abstract or consume or use electricity shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or
with fine or with both:
Provided that in a case where the load abstracted,
consumed, or used or attempted abstraction or attempted
consumption or attempted use –
(i) does not exceed 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction
shall not be less than three times the financial gain on account of
such theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent
conviction the fine imposed shall not be less than six times the
financial gain on account of such theft of electricity;
(ii) exceeds 10 kilowatt, the fine imposed on first conviction shall
not be less than three times the financial gain on account of such
theft of electricity and in the event of second or subsequent
conviction, the sentence shall be imprisonment for a term not less
than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine
not less than six times the financial gain on account of such theft of
electricity:
Provided further that in the event of second and subsequent
conviction of a person where the load abstracted, consumed, or
used or attempted abstraction or attempted consumption or
attempted use exceeds 10 kilowatt, such person shall also be
debarred from getting any supply of electricity for a period which
shall not be less than three months but may extend to two years
and shall also be debarred from getting supply of electricity for
that period from any other source or generating station:
Provided also that if it is proved that any artificial means or
means not authorized by the Board or licensee or supplier, as the
case may be, exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of
electricity by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary
is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of electricity
has been dishonestly caused by such consumer.
(1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the licensee or
supplier, as the case may be, may, upon detection of such theft of
electricity, immediately disconnect the supply of electricity:
Provided that only such officer of the licensee or supplier, as
authorized for the purpose by the Appropriate Commission or any
other officer of the licensee or supplier, as the case may be, of thePage 13 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
rank higher than the rank so authorised shall disconnect the supply
line of electricity:
Provided further that such officer of the licensee or supplier,
as the case may be, shall lodge a complaint in writing relating to
the commission of such offence in police station having jurisdiction
within twenty four hours from the time of such disconnection:
Provided also that the licensee or supplier, as the case may
be, on deposit or payment of the assessed amount or electricity
charges in accordance with the provisions of this Act, shall,
without prejudice to the obligation to lodge the complaint as
referred to in the second proviso to this clause, restore the supply
line of electricity within forty-eight hours of such deposit or
payment.]
(2) 1[Any officer of the licensee or supplier as the case may be,]
authorized in this behalf by the State Government may —
(a) enter, inspect, break open and search any place or premises in
which he has reason to believe that electricity 2[has been or is
being,] used unauthorisedly;
(b) search, seize and remove all such devices, instruments, wires
and any other facilitator or article which has been, or is being,
used for unauthorized use of electricity;
(c) examine or seize any books of account or documents which in
his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to, any proceedings in
respect of the offence under sub-section (1) and allow the person
from whose custody such books of account or documents are
seized to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in his
presence.
(3) The occupant of the place of search or any person on his behalf
shall remain present during the search and a list of all things
seized in the course of such search shall be prepared and delivered
to such occupant or person who shall sign the list:
Provided that no inspection, search and seizure of any domestic
places or domestic premises shall be carried out between sunset
and sunrise except in the presence of an adult male member
occupying such premises.
(4) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
relating to search and seizure shall apply, as far as may be, to
searches and seizure under this Act.”
20. There is a serious lacuna in proving the ingredients of
Section 135 of the Electricity Act and, therefore, after
considering the decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Apex
Court, the Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned
judgment and order. Under the circumstances, I do not find
any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and
Page 14 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
order of acquittal.
21. It was also further observed that, though the prosecution
had produced copies of the photographs at Exhibits 20, 21,
and 23 to show that the electric motor was found in a running
condition and that one person was operating the flour mill,
they had not produced any evidence with regard to the
photograph bill, nor had they examined the photographer to
prove the photographs. Therefore, under the circumstances,
the prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge
against the present respondent. In the absence of any cogent
and clinching evidence, the Trial Court has rightly passed the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the
present respondent.
22. After considering all the relevant provisions of law, the
facts of the case, and the decisions of this Court and the
Hon’ble Apex Court, the Trial Court has rightly passed the
impugned judgment and order.
23. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer the decision in
case of the State of Gujarat vs. Jayendrasinh Motisinh
Zala reported in 2012(0) AIJEL-HC 226407, wherein this
Court has observed as under:-
“5. The investigating officer admitted in his cross examination that
there were number of residential houses located in vicinity of the
house where checking was done, however, statement of none of
such residents residing nearby was recorded. He admitted that
Panchnama of the place was not carried out, nor the Muddamal
wires etc. were recovered in presence of Panchas and even
Panchnama was never drawn to show any such recovery. He
admitted that Panchnama of the place was not carried out, nor the
Muddamal wires etc. were recovered in presence of Panchas and
even Panchnama was never drawn to show any such recovery. He
admitted that as per normal requirement, in the statement ofPage 15 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
consumer either signature of the consumer was obtained or, if it
were thumb impression, signatures of two Panchas were obtained.
However, statement (Exh. 17) did not bear signature of accused
nor the thumb impression of the person present was verified by any
panch. He admitted that he did not investigate as to who was
Ranjanben. He admitted, after seeing envelop of the notice
(Exh.15) sent to the accused that it had returned undelivered with
the postal endorsement that no person named therein had been
staying at Mahelav.”
24. Even in the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case
of Shakambari Industries vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in 2005 (0) AIJEL-MH-131024 the Bombay High
Court has held as under:-
“4. Shri G. B. Lohiya submitted that under Section 151 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 no Court can take cognizance of an offence
punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made
by the Officer authorised. Shri Lohiya further submitted that when
there is prohibition for taking cognizance except upon a complaint
in writing the police could not have taken cognizance of the
offence. The reasoning is that even after completion of
investigation if the police presents charge-sheet the Court would
not be in a position to take cognizance thereof as the same is
barred under section 151 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
5. I find that though the police took cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 no
charge-sheet can be filed and even if filed no cognizance thereof
can be taken by the Court concerned. Thus this is a fit case in
which inherent powers of this Court are required to be invoked for
preventing the abuse of the process of the Court. Hence the
order:”
25. An identical issue on the subject matter has been decided
by this Court vide dated 27.03.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.17
of 2009 in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Kamalbhai
Navalbhai Vyas and in the case of State of Gujarat vs.
Sajidbhai Yakubbhai Pithadiya reported in 2015 LawSuit (Guj)
999, more particularly the observations made in paragraph
Nos. 11, 13, 14 and 15.
26. Further, on perusal of the record of the appeal, it
Page 16 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
transpires that the respondent-accused has established his
innocence before the Trial Court and that, after due
appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence and
other material placed on record, the Trial Court has rightly
passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The
findings recorded by the Trial Court are just, proper and in
accordance with the settled principles of law and, therefore,
no interference is warranted by this Court.
27. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the Appellate
Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider
the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
However, Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of
acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he
is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of their
innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.
28. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on
the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the
trial Court. Further, while exercising the powers in appeal
against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not
ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the
approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest
illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at
Page 17 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are
possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which
would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below.
However, the Appellate Court has a power to review the
evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by
the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a
manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on
record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a
just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find
out whether the accused are connected with the commission
of the crime with which he is charged.
29. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, more particularly
paragraph Nos. 42 and 43, which was subsequently re-
affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State
of Bihar and another, reported in [2022] 3 SCC 471,
wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated the general
principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in paragraph
No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble Apex
Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex
Court. Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar
Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 =
(2024) 8 SCC 149, the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with
the similar issue, more particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to
40. Hence, I am in complete agreement with the findings
Page 18 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
recorded by the trial Court.
30. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20
and 21 as under:-
“20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the general
principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa and others vs.
State of Karnataka , regarding the power of the appellate Court
while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. The
principles read thus:
“42. …. (1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an
appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling
reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong
circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc.
are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court
in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the
nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasize the reluctance of
an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the
power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of
acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under
the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every
person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved
guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having
secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Page 19 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge Bench of
this Court pointed out that it would be essential for the High
Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and
weighty grounds from the record for discarding the reasons of the
Trial Court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion of
guilt of the accused. It was further observed that, in an appeal
against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for the High
Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses
and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly
finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject their
testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of the
jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this light, the
brusque approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal,
resulting in the conviction of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, reversing
the cogent and well-considered judgment of acquittal by the Trial
Court giving them the benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.”
31. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly
appears that there is no credible evidence to connect the
present accused with the alleged crime and the evidence on
record is not so convincing to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the accused has committed the alleged crime. Therefore,
the accused cannot be convicted on the evidence on record.
32. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it
clearly transpires that the trial Court has not committed any
error of fact and law in appreciating the evidence on record
and in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled
against them. Even on re-appreciation of the evidence, it
clearly transpires that the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal
is liable to be dismissed.
33. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of
merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is
Page 20 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/140/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026
undefined
dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond
stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
Page 21 of 21
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Mon Aug 03 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 04 23:03:51 IST 2026
