theft of
Rs.1,00,940.66 paise.
2.2 Therefore,
complainant Deputy Engineer had lodged complaint before GEB
Police Station, Rajkot, by RPAD against the accused ... whether the Deputy Engineer was authorised to file
complaint against the accused and also whether he has any power to
search or seize any muddamal
filed before Sabarmati GEB Police station,
Ahmedabad.
2.2 Therefore,
complainant Deputy Engineer had lodged complaint before Sabarmati
GEB Police Station, Ahmedabad, against the accused which ... whether the Deputy
Engineer was authorised to file complaint against the accused and
also whether he has any power to search or seize any muddamal
complaint was filed before Rajkot GEB Police station.
2.2 Therefore,
complainant Deputy Engineer had lodged complaint before GEB
Police Station, Rajkot, against the accused which ... whether the Deputy
Engineer was authorised to file complaint against the accused and
also whether he has any power to search or seize any muddamal
evidence on record and also considering the
fact that the Deputy Engineer has no authority to file complaint
against respondent and the prosecution has failed ... documentary evidence in support of its case to show that the Deputy
Engineer was authorized to file complaint against the respondent
accused, has acquitted
evidence on record and also considered the
fact that the Deputy Engineer has no authority to file complaint
against respondent and the prosecution has failed ... documentary evidence in support of its case to show that the Deputy
Engineer was authorized to filed complaint against the respondent
accused, has acquitted
volts worth Rs.1,08,785/-. Therefore,
on 4.6.2004 the complainant Deputy Engineer had lodged complaint
before Rajkot GEB Police Station by Regd. Post ... learned Judge has observed that the prosecution has failed
to prove the search and seizure of muddamal and also the ownership of
the premises
