Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shaukathusen Abdulrehman Chanki on 27 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 183 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SHAUKATHUSEN ABDULREHMAN CHANKI
=============================================
Appearance:
MS C.M.SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MM TIRMIZI(1117) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 27/06/2025
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 judgment and the order dated 24.02.2011 in Special (Electricity) Case No.26 of 2010 passed by the learned Special Judge and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District Panchmahal at Godhra (hereinafter referred to as Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined 'the learned Trial Court'), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 135(1)(B) of the Indian 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. The complainant Kiranbhai Balchandra Garg was working as a Deputy Engineer in the Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. (MGVCL), Halol Rural Office and on 08.04.2008, he had gone along with Checking Officer, B.H.Chaudhary and the Deputy Engineer of the Checking Squad for checking electricity connections in village Baska, Taluka Halol, District Panchmahals.
On checking Consumer No.07307/10451/2 of the accused, Shaukathusen Abdul Rehman Chanki, they found the meter to be suspicious and the meter was packed and brought to the laboratory for checking. On 24-06-2008, the meter was checked in Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined the presence of the consumer and it was found that the four plastic body seals of the meter were tampered with and the recording of the units of electricity was obstructed and a bill of theft of electricity of Rs.2,30,969.20 and compounding charges of Rs.12,000/-, and in all, a bill of Rs.2,42,969.20 was given to the accused on 4-07-2008. The bill was not paid by the consumer and complainant Kiranbhai Bhalchandra Garg filed the complaint at the MGVCL Police Station, which was registered MGVCL Police Station, Gotri, Vadodara I-CR No.1110 of 2008 under Section 135 (B) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
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.26 of 2010.
2.3. The accused was duly served with the summons and Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined 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 10 witnesses and produced 10 documentary evidences in support of the case.
2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. 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, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 135(1)(B) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined 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 impugned judgment and order of acquittal is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumptions, not permitted by law. The learned Trial Court has erred in appreciating the fact that there are direct and indirect evidence connecting the respondent with crime produced in this case and 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 is ample and cogent evidence to connect the accused with the crime and the offence registered against him. The learned Trial Court also committed an error in arriving at the conclusion that though the complainant and the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution and there are no material contradictions, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused. 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. Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined
4. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr. Deepak Vigora for learned advocate Mr.M.M.Tirmizi for the respondent No.1. 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.Chetna 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. 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 Judge is contrary to law, evidence on 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. Learned APP has urged this Court to allow the present appeal and impose maximum sentence Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined on the accused.
5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Deepak Vigora for learned advocate Mr.M.M.Tirmizi for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and no interference of this Court is required and has urged this Court to reject the appeal of the appellant.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations 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) Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined ........ 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;] (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of ac- quittal 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 cir-
cumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an ap- pellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phrase- ologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to in- terfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own con- clusion.
(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 avail- able 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 acquit- tal, the presumption of his innocence is further rein- forced, 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 before the Trial Court, it Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined 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, the evidence produced by the prosecution on record is appreciated and the prosecution has Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined examined PW-1 Kiranbhai Bhalchandra Garg at Exh.6 and the witness is the complainant who has stated that in the year 2008, he had gone for checking at the place of the accused, and at that time, the accused was not at home. The wife of the accused telephoned him and told him that they had come to change the meter and they received his consent. That a checking sheet was prepared and the old meter was taken and the new meter was fixed and the electricity connection was joined. On 26-04-2000, the meter was checked in the laboratory in the presence of the accused and it was found that the meter was tampered with and the reading of the meter was obstructed and a bill of theft of electricity was given to him. The complaint was filed which is produced at Exh.7. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the checking was done on 08.04.2008, but the meter was not removed on 08.04.2008. The meter was removed on 15.05.2008 and as per the report produced at Exh.12 no seal numbers is mentioned on the meter. The meter was not checked on 15.05.2008 at the place and no procedure regarding the meter was done at the place where it was fixed. The witness has stated that on 08.04.2008 he did not go for checking and he does not know Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined what was the position of the meter on that day. He had given the notice to the accused and in Exh.12 the Consumer Number is 07307-10451-2, but in the notice produced at Exh.8, the Consumer Number is 07358-00149-4 and the same number is written in the bill, which is produced at Exh.9. The witness has admitted that the consumer numbers in the notice produced at Exh.8 and Exh.9 are different. The laboratory test of the meter was done on 24.06.2008 and no test was done prior to 24.06.2008, but the bill produced at Exh.9, has been prepared on the basis of the report of the Laboratory Inspector dated 17-06-2008.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW-2 Tayyab Usman Yayman at Exh.14 and PW-3 Mohammad Muskeen Nazar Ali Makrani at Exh.16. Both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exh.15. Both the witnesses have stated that they had affixed their signature on the road as the police had called them and they have not gone to the house of the accused to draw the Panchnama. The witnesses have been declared hostile and have been cross examined at length by the learned APP, but nothing to support the Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined case of the prosecution has come on record.
8.2. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Devidas Haribhai Chaudhary at Exh.18 and the witness was working as a Deputy Engineer in the Godhra Circle on 08.04.2008 and he had gone along with the other staff members for checking at Baska village. The meter of the accused was checked and they found the meter to be suspicious and they prepared the Checking Sheet No. 385 and took the meter for checking to the Halol Division Laboratory. All the procedure was conducted in the presence of Rabiyaben, the wife of the accused and a paper seal was affixed on the paper. They had informed the Deputy Engineer Mr.K.B.Garg to conduct the further procedure and the witness has produced the meter sheet at Exh.19. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the place, where they had gone for checking, was a congested area and independent panch witnesses were available. That no female member was in their Checking Squad and when they went to the place for checking, no male person was present at that place. No accurate test or MRI test was done on the meter and they could Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined have put a parallel meter to check whether the meter was moving slowly. They had affixed a paper seal on the meter, but thereafter, he does not know who had seized the meter, and in what condition, the meter was and he has no personal knowledge about the laboratory test of the meter. They did not seize any documents regarding the ownership or possession of the property where the checking was conducted and the meter that was checked was of Consumer No. 07307/1045/2 and they did not check the meter of Consumer No.07358/00149/4.
8.3. The prosecution has examined PW-5 at Exh.20 and the witness was working as a Meter Inspector in the Halol Division Office Laboratory. The witness has stated that the meters are generally sent from the Halol Sub Division and the papers of the consumer are sent to the laboratory and the consumer is also present. The meter is inspected in the presence of a Senior Technician and an officer of the Sub Division and the consumer. On 24.06.2008, the meter of the accused was received at the laboratory, which was brought by the person of the MGVCL and the meter was inspected in the presence of the accused. The body Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined seal, terminal seals etc. were checked and it was found that the body seal was tampered and the Y-phase was loose and scratched and the laboratory report, which is produced at Exh.21, was prepared. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the meter was not opened in the presence of any independent panch witnesses and there is no mention that the meter was running slowly. No MRI test or accurate test was done on the meter and the Electric Inspector was not present when the meter was checked. The witness does not know who had brought the meter and when the meter was brought to her there was no seal of MGVCL on it. 8.4. The prosecution has examined PW-6 Divakar Vasudev Vyas at Exh.22 and the witness was working as a Deputy Engineer in the Halol Laboratory of MGVCL on 24.06.2008. The witness has stated that meter was brought for inspection to the laboratory and in his presence Junior Engineer Taviyadben Senior Technician Tadvibhai and Junior Engineer V.N.Patel had inspected the meter in his presence. In the presence of the consumer, the meter was opened and checked and the boxing was suspicious and they Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined found that the male and female part adhesive solution was refitted and tampered and on checking the body seal of the meter, the male female seal data was scratched and was refitted with a solution and tampered. The Y-phase main side screw was loose and scratched and they found that the meter was tampered and the inspection report in that form was filled in the presence of the consumer and signed by all the officers, who were present and the checking sheet at Exh.21 was prepared. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that a number of meters were checked on that day and no independent panch witnesses were present. No Meter Inspector was also present and while they had checked the meter no MRI test or accurate test was done. The meter that was presented did not have the seal of MGVCL and he does not know who had removed the meter and who had sealed the meter and where it was placed before bringing it to the laboratory. That he does not know the condition of the meter when it was removed from the place and he has not stated in his statement before the police that the body seals were resealed or that the male female seal data was scratched and refitted with the solution. The checking sheet report Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined was prepared by the juniors and he did not call the consumer at the time of the testing of the meter. There is no documentary evidence to show that the person who was present was in fact the consumer of electricity.
8.5. The prosecution has examined PW-7 Ramsinghbhai Manjibhai Taviyad at Exh.23 and the witness was working as a Meter Tester on 08.04.2008. The witness has stated that he had gone for checking at Baska village at the place of the accused and the meter was found suspicious and they had opened the meter and found the body seal suspicious and the checking sheet produced at Exh.19 was prepared. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that there were no independent panch witnesses and no accurate test or MRI test was performed at the spot.
8.6. The prosecution has examined PW-8 Vijendra Nalinbhai Patel at Exh.24 and the witness has stated that the meter was checked by D.H.Choudhury on 08.04.2008 and a remark was made that the seals were suspicious and the meter should be seized and brought to the laboratory for further testing. On Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined 15.04.2008, the meter was seized by Deputy Engineer K.B.Garg and it was packed in a paper and a paper seal was kept with the signature of Deputy Engineer K.B.Garg and a signature of the representative of the consumer was also affixed. The meter was deposited in store of the office Halol Rural and the meter was brought to the Halol Laboratory on 24.06.2008, where in the presence of V.D.Taviyad, D.V.Vyas, D.M.Patel, Senior Technician Tadvi and the consumer, the paper seal was opened and they found that the MMB seal was tampered. Some adhesive substance was applied and all the body seal were tampered with. The main side Y-phase wire was scratched and the meter was packed in a box and given back to him. The bill of the theft of electricity was given and the witness has identified the document produced at Exh.21. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that when he had taken the meter from his office to the laboratory, he does not know the condition in which the meter was kept.
8.7. PW-9 Vidyaben, Dhanjibhai Parmar examined at Exh.26 was working as the P.S.O. at MGVCL Police Station when Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined the complaint of the complainant was sent and she had registered the complaint.
8.8. PW-10 Kesarisinh Rayjibhai Patel examined at Exh.28 is the Investigating Officer, who has stated that he had taken over the investigation of MGVCL Police Station I-CR No.1110 of 2008 from A.S.I. Girvatsinh and as there was enough evidence against the accused, he had filed the charge sheet. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he has not drawn any panchnama of the meter and had not sent the meter for inspection at any laboratory. The arrest panchnama of the accused is produced at Exh.29.
9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the complaint of the complainant produced at Exh.7, the accused had Consumer No. 07307/10451/2 and this electricity connection was checked on 08/04/2008. As per the document produced at Exh.12, the meter of the accused for Consumer No. 07307/10451/2 was taken by MGVCL, Halol Sub Division on 15.05.2008 and as per the Checking Sheet produced at Exh.19, the meter was found to be tampered. The meter was tested Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined in the Meter Testing Laboratory, Halol, on 24.06.2008 and the Meter Testing report is produced at Exh.20, wherein, it was found that the meter was tampered. The bill of theft of electricity, which was given to the accused, which is produced at Exh.9 shows the meter number as 07358/00149/4 and the date of the inspection of the meter is shown as 17.06.2008 and the bill mentions that theft of electricity Rs.2,42,969.20/- has been committed by the accused. In light of these facts, the contradictory evidence regarding the consumer number, which as per the complaint at Exh.7, the removal of the meter by the officers of MGVCL vide the document at Exh.12, the Checking Sheet at Exh.19 as also the Meter Testing Report at Exh.21 for Consumer Number 07307/10451/2, which is the actual number of the consumer of the accused but the notice at Exh.8 and the bill at Exh.9 are for Consumer No. 07358/00149/4 and there is variation in the date of testing of meter i.e. 17.06.2008. Moreover, in the evidence on record, the connection was checked on 08.04.2008 and a paper seal was affixed on the meter and the meter was taken on 15.04.2008 and it was kept in the office, and thereafter, the meter was tested in the laboratory on 24.06.2008. There is no evidence as to whether the meter was properly sealed Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined as no sealing of the meter or seizing of the meter was done in the presence of independent witnesses and there is no iota of evidence regarding the condition in which regarding the condition in which the meter was kept and the place where it was presented. The evidence that has emerged is that there was a paper seal with the signature of the complainant, Deputy Engineer Kiranbhai Balchandrabhai Garg, but there is no evidence as to how and where the meter was preserved and in view of the major contradictions in the evidence produced by the prosecution regarding the Consumer Number and date of testing of the meter and no explanation as to how the bill could be generated by the Testing Report on 17.06.2008 when the meter was tested on 29.06.2008 the evidence of the prosecution is doubtful.
10. There are major contradiction in the evidence of the prosecution and 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 Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/183/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025 undefined learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned 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 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 impugned judgment and the order order dated 24.02.2011 in Special (Electricity) Case No.26 of 2010 passed by the learned Special Judge and 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District Panchmahal at Godhra 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 21 of 21 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Wed Jul 02 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 03 00:24:52 IST 2025