Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat appealed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.06.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity) in Special Electricity Case No.14 of 2009, whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(B) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The prosecution case was that on 04.10.2008, the complainant, a Junior Engineer of UGVCL, raided the premises of the accused at night and found that the accused was committing theft of electricity by illegally connecting a red-coloured wire to the phase wire, thereby drawing electricity directly on the load side. A penalty bill of Rs.5,130.95 was prepared, which was paid by the consumer. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to examine independent panch witnesses and that the raid was conducted at night without proper procedure. The High Court, in appeal under Section 378 CrPC, held that the trial court's findings were not perverse and that the acquittal did not warrant interference. The court observed that the prosecution had not examined any independent witness to corroborate the raid, and the payment of the penalty bill did not amount to an admission of guilt. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of interference - High Court's power to reverse acquittal is limited to cases where the trial court's findings are perverse or based on no evidence - Held that unless the judgment is clearly unreasonable, the appellate court should not substitute its own view (Paras 1, 18). B) Electricity Law - Theft of electricity - Section 135(1)(B) Indian Electricity Act, 2003 - Proof of theft - Prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed theft of electricity - Mere presence of illegal connection without corroboration by independent witnesses is insufficient - Held that the trial court's acquittal based on lack of independent witnesses and procedural irregularities was not perverse (Paras 2-17). C) Evidence - Independent witnesses - Necessity in raid cases - In a raid conducted by electricity officials, independent panch witnesses should be examined to corroborate the prosecution case - Failure to examine independent witnesses creates a reasonable doubt - Held that the trial court rightly acquitted the accused due to absence of independent witnesses (Paras 10-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the accused for offence under Section 135(1)(B) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 was perverse and liable to be set aside in appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Law Points
- Acquittal appeal under Section 378 CrPC
- Electricity theft
- Section 135(1)(B) Indian Electricity Act
- 2003
- Necessity of independent witnesses
- Burden of proof on prosecution
- Payment of penalty bill not admission of guilt
