STATE OF GUJARAT vs SURESEHBHAI PUNJABHAI VAGHELA

R/CR.A/1944/2012 (GJHC240442402012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1944 of 2012

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

==================================================
Yes No
Approved for Reporting
✔
==================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
SURESEHBHAI PUNJABHAI VAGHELA
==================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant(s) No. 1
HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
MR KARTIKEY P RAWAL(720) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

Date : 03/09/2026

JUDGMENT
1. The appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) against the judgment
and order dated 08.06.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Khambhaliya (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Special
(GEB) Case No.57 of 2008, whereby the trial Court has acquitted the
original accused (respondents herein) from the offences punishable
under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
Page 1 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:23 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1944/2012 (GJHC240442402012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that, on 20.01.2006, at
Bhanvad, the accused directly joined private electricity cable
connection illegally in his house with the GEB Cable without meter
and used the same, and thereby, committed theft of power of 1370
watt totaling Rs.57,580.88, and thereby, the accused committed the
offence punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act,
2003.
2.2 Hence, the complainant - Virjibhai Govindbhai Dholariya
registered a complaint being II-C.R.No.1092 of 2006 against the
accused with GEB Police Station, Rajkot Zone for the offences
punishable under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The
respondent herein was charged for the offences punishable under
Section 135 of Act, the Indian Electricity 2003.
2.3 After completion of investigation the police has filed
chargesheet for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the
Indian Electricity Act, 2003 and case was registered as Special (GEB)
Case No.57/2008. Thereafter, notice was issued to the respondent
and after service of notice, respondent has appeared before the
Court, wherein he has not pleaded guilty for the charges levelled
against him and claimed to be tried.
2.4 In order to bring home the charge leveled against the accused,
the prosecution has examined 3 witnesses and also produced 8
documentary evidence on record of the case.
3. After closure of the evidence, the statement of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been
Page 2 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:23 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1944/2012 (GJHC240442402012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
recorded wherein he denied of having committed any offence and
have stated that he is innocent.
4. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on
records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has
acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against him.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal.
6. Heard Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr. K.P. Rawal, learned counsel
for the respondent – accused at length.
7. Ms. Jhaveri , learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the appellant – State of Gujarat has submitted the same facts which
are narrated in the memo of appeal and has also submitted that the
prosecution has examined witnesses and produced documentary
evidence, despite this fact, the trial Court has not considered the
same in its true and proper perspective in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal. Ms. Jhaveri , learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
while referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence,
has assailed the impugned judgment and order and submitted that
the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence
connecting the accused to the alleged offence in its proper
perspective and even the prosecution has been able to prove the
charges levelled against the accused. While referring to the evidence
of the witnesses and the material collected against the accused, Ms.
Jhaveri , learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the
Page 3 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:23 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1944/2012 (GJHC240442402012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
prosecution has established the case against the accused by
examining the witnesses, who have supported the case of the
prosecution, however, the trial Court has discarded and disbelieved
the evidence of these witnesses. She has submitted that the
witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution, however,
the trial Court has not appreciated the same and passed the judgment
and order of acquittal which is illegal and unjust. She has submitted
that it is settled legal position that the evidence of a single witness is
sufficient for conviction if the same is reliable and trustworthy and in
the present case, though the evidence of all the witnesses are reliable
and trustworthy, without any cogent reason, the trial Court has
disbelieved and discarded the evidence of the witnesses.
7.1 According to Ms. Jhaveri , learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have
imposed necessary sentence. She has prayed to allow the present
appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal.
8. Per contra, Mr. Rawal, learned counsel for the respondent –
accused has supported the impugned judgment and order and has
submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error of law and
fact in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against him.
He has submitted that the ingredients of the offence alleged against
the accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore,
the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused as the complainant
has failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused. He has
also submitted that there is not an iota of evidence connecting the
accused with the alleged crime in question. He has therefore, prayed
to confirm the impugned judgment and dismiss the present appeal.
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:23 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1944/2012 (GJHC240442402012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
9. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the trial Court, the questions arise for determination are as
under:-
(1) whether the trial Court is justified in passing the judgment and
order of acquittal.
(2) whether the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence
led by the prosecution in recording the reasons.
(3) whether there is any illegality, irregularity or any perversity in
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also gone
through the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court.
It is necessary to first examine the facts of the case as adhered by the
appellant before the trial Court. That on 20.01.2006, Junior Engineer
Mr. S. K. Chauhan, who was then working at Bhanvad Sub-Division,
along with Junior Engineer Mr. Suresh Kalabhai Chauhan, Meter Tester
Mr. Suresh Bhikhabhai Tadi, and Meter Tester Mr. Paresh Hemrajbhai
Chhug, all of Rajkot T.M.S., were on duty as members of the checking
squad. While conducting checking in the area of Sorathiya Vaas,
Bhanvad Town, when they reached near Sankariya Kuva, they found
that, at the instance of Bhiniben Nazabhai Vaghela, C/o Sureshbhai
Punjabhai Vaghela (respondent herein), unauthorized use of
electricity was being made. Upon checking, it was found that the
respondent was illegally abstracting electricity by using an electric
cable and other apparatus connected to the electric line passing
through the said residence. Accordingly, the complainant, being the
Page 5 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:23 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1944/2012 (GJHC240442402012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
Deputy Engineer of the Bhanvad Sub-Division Office, issued a
supplementary bill amounting to Rs. 57,580.88. Thereafter, upon
receiving the details from the members of the checking squad and the
written complaint, the complainant forwarded the same to the GEB
Police Station, Rajkot, for necessary action. The said complaint was
received by the GEB Police Station, Rajkot, on 11.12.2006, i.e., after a
delay of nearly eleven months, and was registered as II-C.R. No.
1092/2006.
11. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order and the
evidence of the witnesses, it emerges that the complainant, being the
Deputy Engineer serving at the Sub-Division Office, Bhanvad, received
the details from Mr. Suresh Kalabhai Chauhan, who was working as a
Meter Tester. On the basis of the said information, the Sub-Division
Office of P.G.V.C.L. prepared a checking sheet and calculated the total
consumption of electricity. In respect of the alleged unauthorized use
of electricity, a supplementary bill was issued against the respondent,
and a complaint was also lodged before the GEB Police Station,
Rajkot.
12. Now, if the evidence of PW-1, complainant is considered, it
appears that, in his cross-examination, he has admitted before the
Trial Court that he was not authorized by either the Vigilance
Department or the Electrical Inspector to register the offence, as
required under Section 151 of the Act. He has further admitted that
the police had not recorded his statement. However, he was
examined as a witness before the Trial Court and deposed that he had
lodged the FIR. He has also admitted that the document at Exh. 21,
i.e. the impugned complaint, was not prepared by him, but was
prepared by his subordinate officer in his office, and that he had
Page 6 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:23 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1944/2012 (GJHC240442402012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
merely signed the said complaint.
13. From the evidence of PW-2, namely, Suresh Bhikhabhai Tadvi, it
emerges from his cross-examination before the learned Trial Court
that they had neither taken any photographs of the place of
occurrence nor prepared any panchnama or Rojkam at the spot. He
has further deposed that the police recorded his statement on
16.03.2007, i.e. after a period of nearly fifteen months from the date
of checking and approximately three months after the registration of
the offence. He has also admitted that they had not obtained the
signatures of any independent witnesses or panchas. He has further
admitted that no prior written order or authorization had been
received by him for joining the checking squad.
14. If the evidence of PW-3, the Investigating Officer, who recorded
the FIR upon receipt of the complaint from PW-1, the complainant, is
considered, he has admitted before the learned Trial Court that he
had not received any authorization from the complainant for lodging
the complaint. He has further admitted that he had not received any
muddamal from the office of the complainant. He has also admitted
that he had neither drawn any panchnama nor recorded the
statements of any independent witnesses from the nearby area.
15. It is pertinent to note that, in the complaint, there is no material
produced by the prosecution to establish that the respondent was the
owner or occupier of the subject property. At the time of checking, the
name recorded by the checking squad was that of Bhiniben Nazabhai
Vaghela, C/o Sureshbhai Punjabhai Vaghela. Even the supplementary
bill was issued in the name of Bhiniben Nazabhai Vaghela and not in
the name of Sureshbhai Punjabhai Vaghela, the respondent herein.
Page 7 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:23 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1944/2012 (GJHC240442402012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
Similarly, the checking sheet prepared by the department also
contained the name of Bhiniben Nazabhai Vaghela. In such
circumstances, the question arises as to on what basis the present
respondent was arraigned as an accused in the proceedings. The
prosecution has failed to explain this material discrepancy by leading
any cogent and reliable evidence. It is also not the case of the
prosecution that any notice or supplementary bill was served upon
the respondent. Therefore, it appears that the respondent cannot be
held liable for the alleged offence, particularly when his name does
not find place either in the supplementary bill or in the checking
sheet. It is further pertinent to note that even in the FIR, the name of
Bhiniben Nazabhai Vaghela is mentioned, and there is no material on
record explaining the basis on which the respondent was implicated
as an accused. Thus, in the absence of any cogent and reliable
evidence connecting the respondent with the alleged unauthorized
use of electricity, the prosecution against the respondent cannot be
said to have been established.
16. Thus, upon considering the evidence of all three witnesses and
on perusal of the reasons recorded by the Trial Court from paragraphs
10 to 25, it appears that the Trial Court has dealt with the evidence of
each witness in detail. The Trial Court has also recorded its reasons
after referring to and relying upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex
Court as well as this Court, particularly in paragraphs 26 to 33.
Ultimately, the Trial Court has recorded a conclusion that, in view of
the evidence led by the prosecution, the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the charge against the respondent for the alleged
offence. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the trial Court
has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned
judgment and order and I do not find any illegality, perversity, or
Page 8 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:23 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1944/2012 (GJHC240442402012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
infirmity in the impugned judgment and order warranting interference
by this Court.
17. It is well settled by catena of decisions that an Appellate Court
has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence
upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate
Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law.
Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption
of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened
by the trial Court.
18. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis
of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Further, 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 arrived at would not be arrived
at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be
characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the
Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the
judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the Appellate Court
has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the
conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has
committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence
on record. A duty is cast upon the Appellate Court, in such
Page 9 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:23 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1944/2012 (GJHC240442402012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just
decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether
the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with
which they are charged.
19. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , more particularly paragraph Nos.
42 and 43 , which was subsequently re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another , reported in
[ 2022] 3 SCC 471 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated
the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in
paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble
Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more
particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. Hence, I am in complete
agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
20. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of
Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169 , wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:-
“20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the general
principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa and others vs.
State of Karnataka , regarding the power of the appellate Court
while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal.
The principles read thus:
“42. …. (1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order
of acquittal is founded.
Page 10 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:23 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1944/2012 (GJHC240442402012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an
appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own
conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling
reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong
circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc.
are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are
more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasize the
reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than
to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to
come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case
of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the
accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to
him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the
accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his
innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by
the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge Bench of
this Court pointed out that it would be essential for the High
Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and
weighty grounds from the record for discarding the reasons of
the Trial Court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion
of guilt of the accused. It was further observed that, in an appeal
against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for the High
Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses
and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly
finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject their
testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of the
jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this light, the
brusque approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal,
resulting in the conviction of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, reversing
the cogent and well-considered judgment of acquittal by the
Trial Court giving them the benefit of doubt, cannot be
sustained.”
21. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears
that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with
Page 11 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:23 IST 2026

R/CR.A/1944/2012 (GJHC240442402012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the
alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the
evidence on record.
22. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly
transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and
law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the
accused from the charges levelled against him. Even on re-
appreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
23. In view of the above, t h e present appeal is devoid of merits and
it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The
impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is
hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and
proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
Page 12 of 12
Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Mon Sep 07 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 10:45:23 IST 2026