LAWS(GJH)-2025-12-33

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RAMCHANDRA CHANDRAPAL YADAV

Decided On December 02, 2025
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
V/S
Ramchandra Chandrapal Yadav Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity), Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions (G.E.B.) Case No.32 of 2008 dtd. 6/5/2009 awarding acquittal of accused, the State has preferred the present appeal under Sec. 378(1)(3) of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 ('Cr.P.C', for short).

(2.) The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that complainant Deputy Engineer, MGVCL gave complaint before the Police Inspector, MGVCL Police Station that he was discharging his duties at Karjan Sub-division and on 17/3/2008, theft of transformer of Oil and LT, HT winding coil, was committed by the accused persons worth Rs.28,480.00. On the same day, lineman K.R.Patel went to the place of offence and carried out panchnama of scene of offence and lodged complaint under Sec. 136(1)(A) and 150 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. Thereafter, one Esteem Car was checked by Toll-Naka Police from where the accused were caught with muddamal and on the basis of said complaint, investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was filed against the accused. However, as the case was triable by the Special Electricity Court, the same was registered as Special (Elec.) Case No.32 of 2008 and charge was framed against the accused persons for commission of offences under Sec. 136(1) (A) and 150 of the Indian Electricity Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Prosecution has examined number of witnesses as well as produced various documentary evidence on record and at the conclusion of trial, learned Special (Electricity) and Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara was pleased to acquit the accused from the offences under Sec. 136(1) (A) and 150 of the Indian Electricity Act against which the State has filed appeal.

(3.) Learned APP Ms.Pathak argued that trial Court has committed an error in passing the order of acquittal and has failed to appreciate oral evidence of 10 witnesses which have been examined by the prosecution and failed to take into consideration 04 documentary evidences produced by the prosecution.