Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. ... vs Smt. Rajkumari Dhhemar on 17 October, 2014
1 M.Cr.C.No.13572 of 2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH KAKADE
Misc. Criminal Case No. 13572 of 2012
M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidhyut Vitran Co. Ltd.
Through O.I.C. Executive Engineer,
M.P. P.K.V.V.C.L, O & M Division,
Prathvipur, District Tikamgarh (M.P.)
Versus
Smt. Rajkumari Dhhemar
w/o Shri Manbahore Dheemar,
aged about 65 years,
R/o behind Pawan House, Prathvipur,
District Tikamgarh (M.P.).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(O R D E R) (Passed on 17th October, 2014) This application under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the M.P. Electricity Board for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 12/04/2012 passed by learned Special Court (Electricity Act), Teekamgarh in Special (Complaint) Case No.1278/2010 whereby the respondent Smt. Rajkumari Dhhemar has been acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 135(1)(a) & 138(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
2. The case of the prosecution was that officers of the applicant/ Board investigated the premises of the respondent on 13/03/2006 and found that the respondent was consuming electricity directly connecting the wire with L.T. Service line after disconnection of electricity on account 2 M.Cr.C.No.13572 of 2012 of arrears of payment on 06.01.2006 and caused certain loss to the State Exchequer. Officers of the applicant/Board seized the wire used by the respondent, prepared a Panchnama and filed a case under Section 135(1)
(a) & 138(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
3. Learned Special Court after appreciation of statements of Sumangal Prasad Tiwari, Assistant Lineman (PW/1), Shyamlal Pal, Assistant Lineman (PW/2) and Harnarayan Saxena, Assistant Lineman (PW/3) found that there were material contradictions, omissions in their statements. Learned Special Judge also found that location of the electrical poll is not clarified and seized wire also not produced and the ownership and possession of the disputed premises is also not established beyond reasonable doubt. In these facts and circumstances of the case, after referring to various citations, learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent of the charges punishable under Section 135(1)(a) & 138(1)
(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. It is a well-settled principle of law that unless the judgment of acquittal is palpably wrong and grossly unreasonable, interference in the application for leave to file appeal is not called for. The High Court can consider any special features in a particular case and cannot ignore the effect which the granting of leave to appeal without due discrimination may have the principle of normal presumption of innocence of the accused in our criminal justice delivery system, which has been further reinforced and were strengthened by the order of acquittal by the trial Court. Accordingly, unless the High Court is 3 M.Cr.C.No.13572 of 2012 satisfied, considered in the light above, about some indications or error in a judgment of acquittal, the High Court may not grant leave.
5. The application for grant of leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily.
(SUBHASH KAKADE) JUDGE SJ-