Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran ... vs Jayraj Rathore on 2 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26144
1 CRA-1956-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2026
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1956 of 2026
M.P. MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO.LTD.
Versus
JAYRAJ RATHORE
Appearance:
Ms. Sonali Pandey - Advocate for appellant.
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant/company assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18.03.2016 passed in Special Case No.24 of 2009 by the Special Judge (Electricity Act No.2), Bhopal (M.P.) whereby the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 135 (1)(E) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
2. According to case of the prosecution, on 17.12.2008 at approximately 15:30 hours, at Flat No. T-302, Sukhmani Tower, Lalghati, Bhopal, premises belonging to the accused, an inspection was conducted by the Assistant Engineer of the complainant, Shri R.K. Gupta, along with members of the inspection team. During the course of the inspection, it was detected that the accused was committing theft of electricity by unauthorized and illegal use of electrical energy. It was further revealed during investigation that the accused was a registered consumer having a valid electricity connection sanctioned exclusively for domestic use. However, at Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/7/2026 6:15:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26144 2 CRA-1956-2026 the time of inspection, the said connection was found to be misused for non- domestic purposes. Specifically, it was observed that the accused had let out approximately 15 rooms within the premises to students of Kusha Bhau Thackeray Nursing Home and was supplying electricity to them through the domestic connection, thereby diverting electricity for commercial/hostel purposes in contravention of the terms and conditions of supply.
3. The connected domestic load was assessed as follows:
5 fans (60 watts each), 5 tube lights (40 watts each), 1 television (150 watts), 1 cooler (250 watts), 3 CFL lamps (18 watts each), 1 refrigerator (150 watts), 1 electric iron (450 watts), and 1 Aquaguard (20 watts), aggregating to 1574 watts.
4. The non-domestic load was assessed as follows:
45 CFL lamps (27 watts each) and 45 fans (60 watts each), aggregating to 3945 watts.
5. Thus, the total connected load found in unauthorized use amounted to 5489 watts.
6. A panchnama was duly prepared at the site in the presence of the inspection team members, namely Shri R.K. Gupta, Shri Mehraj Ul Haq, and Shri Lalaram (Line Helper), as well as Smt. Sunita Rathore, wife of the accused, who signed the same. A copy of the panchnama was furnished to the concerned party. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, it was concluded that the accused had committed theft of electrical energy amounting to Rs. 19,451/- by unauthorized use of 5489 watts of electricity, thereby rendering himself liable for action under the applicable provisions of law. Hence, a Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/7/2026 6:15:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26144 3 CRA-1956-2026 complaint has been filed on behalf of the complainant company for criminal cognizance against the accused for the offence under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 with a prayer to punish him appropriately.
7. After the case was taken into cognizance, the learned Special Judge has framed the charge against the accused under Section 135 (1)(E) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The accused denied the charges and sought a trial. He defended himself by claiming that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated.
8. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined P.R. Sahu (PW-1); R.K. Gupta (PW-2); Mehraj Ul-Haq (PW-3); and placed Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/5, and Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/6, the documents on record.
9. The learned Trial Court having analyzed and marshalled the testimonies of witnesses and examined the documentary evidence available on record found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and eventually acquitted the accused respondent of the charge under Section 135(1)(E) of the Electricity Act. Hence, this appeal.
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the best available evidence has been duly adduced before the learned Trial Court. Although Prosecution Witnesses PW-1 to PW-3 are departmental witnesses, their testimonies consistently and unequivocally support the prosecution case in its entirety, leaving no justifiable ground to disbelieve or discard their statements. It is further submitted that, in the absence of any independent witnesses, the cogent and reliable evidence of the departmental witnesses cannot be doubted merely on that ground. The learned Trial Court has erred Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/7/2026 6:15:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26144 4 CRA-1956-2026 in law in acquitting the respondent/accused solely on the premise of non- examination of independent witnesses, which is contrary to settled legal principles. It is contended that the evidence available on record is sufficient and adequate to establish the commission of the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(e) of the Electricity Act. The impugned judgment of acquittal, therefore, suffers from legal infirmity and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal and convict the respondent/accused in accordance with law, and impose an appropriate sentence commensurate with the offence proved on record.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
12. The material prosecution witness, Shri R.K. Gupta (PW-2), has deposed before the learned Trial Court that on 17.12.2008, while he was posted as an Assistant Engineer, he conducted an inspection at the campus of Sukhmani Tower, Vijay Nagar, pertaining to the accused, Jayraj. He was accompanied by Shri Mehraj Ul-Haq and Shri Lalaram, Line Helper. During the course of inspection, he found that electricity was being illegally utilized for commercial purposes in Narsingh Hostel through a domestic electricity meter, thereby constituting unauthorized use of electrical energy. He further deposed that the electricity connection in question had earlier been disconnected on account of non-payment of dues; however, at the time of inspection, the same was found to be in running condition. It has also been stated that the wife of the accused was present at the site during inspection, Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/7/2026 6:15:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26144 5 CRA-1956-2026 and her signatures were obtained on the panchnama prepared on the spot, which has been exhibited as Exhibit P/2. The witness further deposed that the domestic connection, having a sanctioned load of 1574 watts, was again disconnected, and it was found that approximately 3915 watts of electricity was being consumed for commercial purposes. He further stated that he prepared the assessment report (Exhibit P/3) and issued the corresponding bill (Exhibit P/4) to the accused in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures.
13. Another eye-witness to the incident, Shri Mehraj Ul-Haq (PW-3), who was part of the inspection team and functioning as a Line Helper, has duly corroborated and supported the panchnama (Exhibit P/2) prepared by Shri R.K. Gupta (PW-2) at the spot. Further, Shri P.R. Sahu (PW-1) has deposed that he had formally instituted and submitted the complaint before the learned Trial Court in accordance with law.
14. It is a settled principle of law that the burden of proving the commission of an offence squarely lies upon the prosecution. The prosecution is required to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent, credible, and reliable evidence, so as to enable the Court to arrive at a definite conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused.
15. In the present case, at the very outset, the prosecution was under an obligation to establish the ownership, title, or lawful possession of the premises, namely Sukhmani Tower, wherein it is alleged that the accused was residing. Admittedly, at the time of inspection, the accused was not found present at the spot. It has been deposed by Shri R.K. Gupta (PW-2) Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/7/2026 6:15:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26144 6 CRA-1956-2026 that one Sunita Rathore, stated to be the wife of the accused, was present at the premises during the inspection. However, the basis on which the said witness identified or presumed Sunita Rathore to be the wife of the accused has not been clarified in his testimony. Although he has referred to her signature on the panchnama (Exhibit P/2), there is no specific mention or identification of her name appended alongside the said signature. Furthermore, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to substantiate this material fact. Even the departmental witness, Mehraj Ul-Haq (PW-3), has merely deposed that the panchnama (Exhibit P/2) was prepared by Shri R.K. Gupta (PW-2), and has not made any statement regarding the presence of Sunita Rathore at the spot or her relationship with the accused. He has also not deposed that Exhibit P/2 bears the signature of Sunita Rathore or that she is the legally wedded wife of the accused. In such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to satisfactorily establish the identity and presence of Sunita Rathore, as well as her relationship with the accused, thereby creating a material lacuna in the prosecution case.
16. The prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation as to why no independent witness was associated with the inspection proceedings or made a witness to the panchnama (Exhibit P/2). In this regard, none of the prosecution witnesses has offered any plausible or satisfactory explanation for such omission. Further, PW-1, in his cross-examination, has categorically admitted that he is not in a position to depose regarding the genuineness of the documents filed along with the complaint. It is submitted that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/7/2026 6:15:21 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26144 7 CRA-1956-2026 authenticity and correctness of such documents could have been duly proved only by the person who prepared or executed the same, whose non- examination casts a serious doubt on the prosecution case.
17. R.K. Gupta (PW-2), in his deposition, has admitted that the Kalakunj campus was being utilized as a girls' hostel for Narsingh College, wherein several female students were residing as tenants. However, he has further admitted that no enquiry was conducted from any of the said occupants with regard to the alleged unauthorized use or theft of electricity. Such omission on the part of the investigating/inspecting authority to examine material witnesses, who were readily available at the spot, creates a significant gap in the prosecution case and adversely affects its credibility.
18. There is no cogent or reliable evidence on record to establish the ownership, title, or lawful possession of the disputed premises by the accused. On the contrary, the evidence adduced by the defence, along with the documents produced in support thereof, creates a reasonable doubt as to the veracity and credibility of the prosecution case. It is further reflected from the defence material that the accused had submitted an application for the issuance of an electricity meter; however, the same was not duly considered or acted upon by the concerned electricity department. This circumstance further weakens the prosecution case and lends support to the defence version.
19.It is settled principle of law that if there two views are possible from the evidence, the view favourable to the accused will prevail.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/7/2026 6:15:21 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26144 8 CRA-1956-2026 Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly adopted such view and acquitted the respondent/accused from the levelled charge. No ground emerges to this Court warranting interference in the judgment of acquittal by the learned trial Court.
20. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, (2016) 14 SCC 151 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also the rule of justice in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. In case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., (2023) 6 SCC 605 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. Unless finding of the trial Court is found to be perverse or illegal/impossible, it is not permissible for the appellate Court to interfere with the same.
21. Recently in case of Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544 the Hon'ble Apex Court has again summarized the principles while deciding the appeal against acquittal which are as follows :-
"42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarised as :Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/7/2026 6:15:21 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26144 9 CRA-1956-2026
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive -- inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the trial court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a reappreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the trial court."..."
22. In the conspectus of the aforesaid facts, evidence, and prevailing circumstances discussed hereinabove, the conclusion of acquittal arrived at by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to law. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any legal infirmity.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/7/2026 6:15:21 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26144 10 CRA-1956-2026
23. Therefore, while affirming the findings of acquittal of respondent by trial Court, the appeal being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI) JUDGE julie Signature Not Verified Signed by: JULIE SINGH Signing time: 4/7/2026 6:15:21 PM