High Court of Gujarat Dismisses State Appeal Against Acquittal in Electricity Theft Case — Failure to Prove Theft Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Acquittal upheld as prosecution failed to establish illegal connection and theft of electricity under Section 135(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 232
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.07.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Special (GEB) Case No.61 of 2009. The respondent, Vallabhbhai Virjibhai Virani, was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 135(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The prosecution case was that on 22.12.2006 or prior thereto, the accused had made an illegal connection by connecting an illegal wire from the LT line at his address and was running a flour mill, thereby committing theft of electricity worth Rs.1,59,248.10 ps. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The trial court, after considering the evidence, acquitted the accused. The State, feeling aggrieved, preferred this appeal. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the illegal connection and theft beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The judgment was pronounced on 18.03.2026.

Headnote

A) Criminal Appeal - Acquittal Appeal - Section 378 CrPC - Standard of Review - Appeal against acquittal - Court held that unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse or based on no evidence, the appellate court should not interfere - Held that the trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse (Paras 1-14).

B) Electricity Law - Theft of Electricity - Section 135(1) Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Burden of Proof - Prosecution failed to prove illegal connection and theft beyond reasonable doubt - Held that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 2-13).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal dated 07.07.2012 in Special (GEB) Case No.61 of 2009 for offences under Section 135(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 is perverse and liable to be set aside.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.

Law Points

  • Acquittal appeal under Section 378 CrPC
  • standard of proof in criminal appeal against acquittal
  • presumption of innocence
  • burden of proof on prosecution
  • electricity theft under Section 135(1) of Indian Electricity Act
  • 1910
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 874

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1734 of 2012

2026-03-18

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER

2026:GUJHC:20393

MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1; RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1

State of Gujarat

Vallabhbhai Virjibhai Virani

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against acquittal in a case of theft of electricity under Section 135(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910.

Remedy Sought

The State of Gujarat sought setting aside of the acquittal and conviction of the respondent.

Filing Reason

The State was aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 07.07.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Special (GEB) Case No.61 of 2009.

Previous Decisions

The trial court acquitted the accused on 07.07.2012.

Issues

Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal is perverse and liable to be set aside.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite sufficient evidence. The respondent's side was not represented; rule was served.

Ratio Decidendi

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere unless the judgment is perverse or based on no evidence. The trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse.

Judgment Excerpts

Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal, dated 07.07.2012, passed by the learned Special Judge and 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in Special (GEB) Case No.61 of 2009, for the offences punishable under Section 135(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).

Procedural History

The trial court acquitted the accused on 07.07.2012. The State filed an appeal under Section 378 CrPC on an unspecified date. The appeal was reserved on 10.03.2026 and pronounced on 18.03.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Electricity Act, 1910: 135(1)
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 378
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Power Grid Corporation's Appeal in Land Acquisition Case — Upholds Single Judge's Order Directing Consideration of Representation for De-notification. Land Acquisition Officer Must Consider Request for De-notificat...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Hears Challenge to Order Partially Allowing Review of Amendment Application in Civil Suit. Civil Court Review of Amendment Allowing Addition of Declaratory Relief in Suit for Perpetual Injunction Examined Under Section 114 and Order...