The Gujarat High Court in its recent order in the case State of Gujarat Versus Balvantsinh Amarsinh Raj observed while upholding the acquittal of a man under Section 135 of the Electricity Act for alleged unlicensed connection has made it clear that possession/ownership of the property in question has to be factored into consideration.
The bench comprising of Justice Ashokkumar Joshi observed and rejected the State’s appeal on several grounds, which includes the fact that the Police did not call for any certificate or documents to show the ownership or possession of accused for the so-called place of occurrence.
The Court held that the order of the trial court has meticulously considered all the depositions of the witnesses and the state has failed to prove the case against the Accused-Respondent and the trial court’s order did not warrant any interference.
It was observed that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrive at by any reasonable person would not be arrived at.
The Deputy Engineer of the South Gujarat Vij Company Ltd lodged a complaint accusing the Respondent of theft of electricity. Alleging, the Applicant did not have a regular connection and he had obtained illegal direct connection from low transmission line. The allegations were made that an average bill of Rs. 2 lacs were prepared and issued to the Accused which was not paid by him and thus an instant complaint was filed.
The Trial’s court order is opposed by the APP by relying on the deposition of several witnesses who were said to be ‘reliable and trustworthy’ and other documentary evidence.
It was argued by the respondent that it was not proved by the Prosecution that the ownership of the premises belonged to the Accused. However, there was no need to interfere with the judgement order.
It was noticed by the bench of Justice Joshi that the lineman at the respective time was cross-examined and had admitted that he had no knowledge of the number of persons who were residing at the place. In the market, the captioned wire which was confiscated was easily available and did not contain any piece of marking paper. Further there was no PVC/Wire wiring at the residential place of the Accused person. It was also admitted by the Panch Witness that theft was not possible through the captioned wires. Another Panch Witness had turned hostile.
It was also admitted by the In-Charge PSO at the Police Station that he merely registered the offence and had done ‘nothing’ except for this. Consequently, there was also no evidence for the possession or ownership of the place of occurrence by the Accused.
Accordingly, the bench dismissed the State’s appeal.