STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ISHWARBHAI SHANKARBHAI GOHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order dated 18. 04. 2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity), Bharuch in Special Electricity Case No. 15 of 2006, whereby, the respondent, accused person, has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 2. 1 On 15. 03. 2005 the officials of the Gujarat Electricity Board carried out a surprise inspection at the shop of the respondent-accused. During the said inspection, the authorities found that the respondent-accused had allegedly tampered with the electric meter, thereby, consuming electricity on illegal basis. Therefore, a bill amounting to Rs. 2,68,404. 17 was handed over to the respondent. 2. 2 However, as the respondent-accused had not paid the said amount, on 07. 04. 2005, a complaint was filed against him with G. E. B. Police Station, South Zone, Surat, which was registered as C. R. I-No. 70/2005. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, as sufficient material was found against the respondent, he was arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed against him before the Court of learned JMFC, Vagra. As the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court, Bharuch and it was numbered as Special Electricity Case No. 15/2006. Trial was initiated against the respondent. At the end of trial and after recording the statement of the respondent-accused under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. , the learned trial Judge acquitted him of all the charges, by passing the impugned judgment and order. 2. 3 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant - State has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) IT was contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Court below is against the provisions of law; the Court below has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and that looking to the provisions of law itself, it is established that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this Court through the oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record.