Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Rakeshbhai Virjibhai Bhadaniya on 19 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/744/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 744 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RAKESHBHAI VIRJIBHAI BHADANIYA
========================================================
Appearance:
MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 19/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') against the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge and 7th (Ad.hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Special Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 05:03:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/744/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined (Electricity) Case No. 288 of 2014 dated 10.02.2016, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 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 relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:
2.1. On 12.12.2007, the officers of Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "PGVCL") conducted a checking at the residential premises of the accused situated at Jamnagar. It was found that the accused was not a registered consumer of electricity and had tampered with the meter and was committing theft of electricity and by such illegal use of electricity, theft of electricity amounting to Rs.78,991.73 paisa was committed. The complainant thereafter filed a complaint at the GEB Police Station under Section 135 of the Act, which came to be registered as GEB Police Station II.CR No. Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 05:03:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/744/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined 1437 of 2008.
2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.
As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion of the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Special (Electricity) Case No. 288 of 2014. 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 was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.3 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.4, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 04 witnesses and produced 09 documentary evidences in support of the case. Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 05:03:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/744/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined 2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.19, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded wherein the accused denied the evidence. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 135 of the Act.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The learned Trial Court has erroneously came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused though there are ample and cogent evidence to connect the accused with the crime and the offence registered against him. The learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 05:03:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/744/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined record it its true spirit. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, invalid, improper, perverse and bad in.law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State. Though served, the respondent no.1 did not appear either in person or engage a lawyer to make submissions on his behalf. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re.appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 05:03:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/744/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined record and principles of justice. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence and impose maximum sentence on the accused.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observa- tions of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 :
AIR 2006 SC 831, this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) ........ From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;] Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 05:03:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/744/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreci-
ate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limita-
tion, 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 com-
pelling 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 ac- quittal. 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 available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be pre- sumed 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.
7. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 05:03:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/744/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined before the Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality of perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must.
8. In light of the above settled principles of law, the evidence on record is re.appreciated and the prosecution has Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 05:03:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/744/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined examined PW.1 Jitendra Rathilal Viradia at Exh.7 and the witness was working as a Junior Engineer, who had checked the meter of the accused on 24.04.2008 in the laboratory. The witness has stated that on 12.12.2007, the I.C. Squad of PGVCL had checked the electricity connection of the accused and the had taken the meter and sent the meter to the Sub Division packed in a paper, which was checked on 24.04.2008 in the lab. The witness along with Deputy Engineer H.D.Mandalian, Deputy Engineer M.R.Vaishnav and Senior Technician J. P. Sidhpura was present but the accused or any representative of the accused was not present and an ex-parte rojkam was prepared. They opened the meter which was wrapped in a paper and the paper seals on both the sides were cut. The body of the meter did not have any seals and the box of the MMB seal was tampered with. The 'Y' phase of PT link was not present and the meter was not recording the exact consumption of electricity and they found theft of electricity was taking place. The rojkam was prepared and the witness has produced rojkam at Exh.8. During the cross- examination, the witness has admitted that he was not on the spot on 12.12.2007 and has no personal knowledge about the Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 05:03:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/744/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined meter when it was taken down from the place. There is no mention in the rojkam as to on which date was the meter body seal affixed and when they opened the meter, there was no foreign body found in the meter. In the report it is only stated that the PT link was not found and they had earlier given three dates to the accused to remain present and the last date was given on 4.1.2008, but the meter was checked on 24.04.2008 and they had done the rojkam on 24.4.2008.
8.1. PW.2 Hasmukhbhai Dullabhji Mandalia examined at Exh.9 was the Deputy Engineer, who has stated that Deputy Engineer D.J.Bindi and other staff members had gone on 12.12.2007 to check the meter of the accused. The witness has stated that three dates for checking the meter were given to the accused, and thereafter, on 24.4.2008, the meter was checked and lab rojkam was done and it was found that the meter was tampered with. The calculation and assessment sheet and consumption sheet was prepared along with Annexure.11 which is produced at Exhs. 8 to 11. Thereafter, the notice produced at Exh.12 was issued to the consumer along with the bill of theft of electricity, which is produced at Exh.13. The witness has stated Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 05:03:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/744/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined that he had received the approval to lodge the police complaint by the letter of the Executive Engineer produced at Exh.14, and thereafter, he had filed the complaint, which is produced at Exh.15. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the complaint has been filed on 21.06.2008, and as per Rules, the consumer has to be given a fourth date which was not given. The rojkam was an ex-parte rojkam, which was after 3 months and 20 days after they had taken the meter and they did not give any written intimation to the accused that the meter was to be checked and the lab rojkam was to be done on 24.4.2008. At the time of writing of the lab rojkam of the disputed meter there was no representative of the accused present and in the letter dated 06.05.2008, it is not mentioned that the ex-parte rojkam was sent to the accused. The witness has admitted that he did not go to the place of incident and the muddamal wire was not handed over to the Investigating Officer and was not seized in the presence of independent panch witnesses. It is necessary that the seizure memo has to be filled up when the muddamal is seized, but no seizure memo was produced on record and the meter that was seized was in the office and was not handed over Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 05:03:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/744/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined to the Investigating Officer.
8.2. PW.3, Dilipbhai Jivanbhai Bindi examined at Exh.15 was a member of the I.C. Squad, who had gone to check the meter of the accused. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and has produced the checking sheet at Exh.16. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he had gone for replacing the meter and in the document produced at Exh.16, it is mentioned that the wiring at the place was proper. There was a tenant Ketanbhai Ramjibhai Kalaria, but no evidence about the tenancy was taken and besides the MMBC, the glass window of the meter was proper.
8.3. PW.4 Ranjitsinh Kuldipsinh Lubana is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. In the cross examination, he has admitted that no Muddamal was seized during investigation and no Panchnama of the place of offence was drawn. Moreover, no statements of any independent witnesses were recorded and the complaint was sent by post, but along with the complaint, no documents were sent to the Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 05:03:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/744/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined police station. Moreover the complaint did not have any explanation regarding the delay in filing of the complaint, which was filed after a delay of almost six months.
9. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it is on record that the checking was done, the meter was seized on 12.12.2007 and the complaint is filed on 02.07.2008 after a delay of almost six months, but there is no reason for delay in filing the complaint. Moreover, as per the case of the prosecution, a tenant was present when the checking of the meter was undertaken by the I.C. Squad, but the tenant has not been examined as a witness before the learned Trial Court and there is no evidence that, in fact, the meter was checked at the place of incident. As per the evidence, the meter was sealed in a paper pack, but there is no evidence as to where the meter was placed and in what manner it was placed after it was taken till the time that it was checked as per the evidence on record. The meter was checked by the officers on 24.04.2008 without intimation to the accused, and at the time of checking of the meter, the accused or his representative were not present. Moreover, it has also emerged on record that the muddamal Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 05:03:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/744/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined meter was lying in the Sub Division Office and no muddamal was given to the Investigating Officer. PW4, Ranjitsinh Kuldipsinh Lubana, the Investigating Officer, has admitted that no panchnama of the place of offence was drawn and no muddamal was seized by him during investigation. Moreover, there are no statements of any independent witnesses even though as per the case of the prosecution, the place of offence was a residential area and it was a thickly populated area and there were other shops surrounding the place where the electricity connection was checked.
10. In view of the above, the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is in Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 05:03:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/744/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2025 undefined complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed.
11. The judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge and 7th (Ad.hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Special (Electricity) Case No. 288 of 2014 order dated 10.02.2016 is hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S.KAZI.....
Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 05:03:10 IST 2025