PATEL KANTILAL SHANKARBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed against judgment and order dtd. 4/9/2009 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity), Mehsana in Special Electricity Case No.24 of 2008. By the impugned judgment and order, the Special Judge has convicted the appellant for offence under Sec. 135(1)(B) of the Indian Electricity Act and imposed rigorous imprisonment of 9 months with fine of Rs.2,500.00.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the appellant at the outset submitted that an error is committed by the Special Judge to proceed with with the trial on the basis that the present was the second offence with previous antecedent which came to be compounded. According to learned Advocate for the appellant, this finding is factually erroneous as on previous occasion, there was no offence of theft against the appellant.

(3.) As against this, learned APP for the respondent-State, in support of the impugned judgment and order, has submitted that the Special Judge has assigned sufficient and cogent reasons in recording conviction and that submission on the part of learned Advocate for the appellant of mere variation in timing cannot set aside entire case of prosecution. Learned APP has drawn attention of this Court to the version of this witness to indicate that in answer to the question put in cross-examination, the witness has given only the probable timing taken for the purpose of inspection, but the same cannot be applied strictly to mean that there was no inspection at all.