STATE OF GUJARAT vs BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI BUVAD
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
R/CR.A/1579/2012 (GJHC240439762012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1579 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI BUVAD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS JIRGA JHAVERI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. YOGENDRA THAKORE(3975) 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 against the
judgment and order dated 16.06.2012 passed by the learned Special
Judge and 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha, Himatnagar
(hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”), whereby the trial
Court has acquitted the original accused (respondent herein) from the
offence punishable under Section 135(1)(A) of the Electricity Act,
2003 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
2. Short facts of the prosecution case are that on 01.03.2006, the
complainant – Mr. Natwarbhai Umedbhai Patel, Deputy Engineer,
Page 1 of 14
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 16:46:51 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1579/2012 (GJHC240439762012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
UGVCL along with members of checking party has carried out
checking at the field of respondent accused situated at village
Vansali, Tal.: Bhiloda, Dist. Sabarkantha and during their inspection,
respondent was found committing theft of electricity by way of illegal
means. That, therefore, a supplementary bill of Rs.61,100/- was
prepared and issued to respondent, which was not paid by him within
the period of limitation. Hence, a complaint was lodged by the
complainant before UGVCL (GEB) Police Station, Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad for the aforesaid offences. The police prepared
panchnama of the scene of offence and recorded the statements of
the witnesses. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was
submitted into the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Bhiloda.
2.1 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial
Court vide Exhibit 2 for the aforesaid offences against the accused.
On being explained it to him, the accused has denied having
committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge
and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha.
3. I t appears from the records that to prove the case, the
prosecution has examined 5 witnesses and has also produced 7
documentary evidences.
4. After closure of the evidence, the statement of the accused
under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been
recorded wherein he denied of having committed any offence and has
stated that he is innocent.
5. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on
Page 2 of 14
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 16:46:51 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1579/2012 (GJHC240439762012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has
acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against him.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred
this appeal.
7. Heard Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr.Yogendra Thakore, learned
counsel for the respondent – accused at length.
8. 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
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
Page 3 of 14
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 16:46:51 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1579/2012 (GJHC240439762012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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.
8.1 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.
9. Per contra, Mr.Thakore, 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 no iota of evidence to connect the
accused with the alleged crime in question. He has prayed to confirm
the impugned judgment and dismiss the present appeal.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the materials on record. On perusal of the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, the
Page 4 of 14
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 16:46:51 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1579/2012 (GJHC240439762012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
questions that arise for determination are as under:-
(1) whether the trial Court has rightly 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 and perversity in
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
11. On perusal of the records it appears that on 01.03.2006, the
complainant, along with other officers from UGVCL, Sabarkantha, had
inspected the agricultural land situated at Village - Vansali, Taluka -
Bhiloda, District - Sabarkantha, and found that the respondent was
using electric cable and other apparatus and was thereby directly
abstracting electricity from the LT line of UGVCL and running a
submersible motor in the well situated on the agricultural land and for
such unauthorized use of electricity, UGVCL, Bhiloda, issued a
supplementary bill to the respondent for an amount of Rs. 61,100/-
and also lodged a prosecution under Section 135 of the Electricity Act,
2003. The said complaint was forwarded by the complainant – PW1 to
GEB Police Station, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad which was thereafter
inwarded at the above police station and is produced at Exhibit 8.
12. On perusal of the deposition of the PW-1, it appears that the
complainant had not personally visited the place of offence and was,
therefore, not aware of the situation prevailing at the agricultural land
of the respondent. He further admitted in his cross-examination that,
in the document at Exhibit 9, the respondent was neither present nor
had he signed the said document. Rather, the person who was
Page 5 of 14
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 16:46:51 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1579/2012 (GJHC240439762012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
present at the agricultural land had signed the document. However,
the prosecution failed to prove whether such person was the legal
representative of the respondent. It appears that PW-2, Becharbhai
Surjibhai Katara, confirmed that the muddamal, namely, the electric
cable and other apparatus, were found at the place of occurrence and
the panchnama of seizure of muddamal was drawn. However, it
appears that it was neither produced before the concerned
Investigating Officer during the course of investigation nor produced
before the trial Court. It appears that PW-4, Vijaykumar Narsinhbhai
Gameti, has admitted before the trial Court that no panchnama was
drawn and that they had not recorded the statements of the owners
of the nearby agricultural lands. He further admitted that, at the time
of inspection, the respondent was not present at the agricultural land.
While examining PW-5, Ghanshyambhai Kanjibhai Rao, the Talati-cum-
Mantri of village Vansali, which is a group village panchayat
comprising other villages including Kamthariya, Chunakhan, Mankroda
and Vansali, the prosecution intended to prove that the present
respondent was the owner of the agricultural land bearing survey no.
228 of Vansali. However, in his cross-examination, PW-5 admitted
that, apart from the present respondent, there were 17 other co-
owners whose names were reflected in the revenue records, namely,
Forms no. 7,12 and 8-A. However, from a perusal of the record, it
appears that no notice regarding the disputed deal was ever served
upon the other co-owners of the subject land, nor were they joined as
accused in the present proceedings by the complainant. Therefore,
whether the present respondent was the sole owner and in possession
of the subject agricultural land was also not proved by the prosecution
by leading any cogent and material evidence. Thus, this basic and
fundamental fact was not proved by the prosecution. It appears that
the prosecution also did not examine the police officer who registered
Page 6 of 14
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 16:46:51 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1579/2012 (GJHC240439762012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
or investigated the offence nor did the prosecution examine the
panch witnesses, particularly when no panchnama had been drawn. In
the absence of proof of these basic and fundamental facts, the
prosecution failed to establish the case against the respondent.
Therefore, the trial Court rightly passed the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal. Even from a perusal of the evidence of PW-1, the
complainant, another important fact emerges, whether the
complainant was duly authorized, as required under Section 151 of
the Act. Furthermore, on perusal of the complaint at Exhibit 8, it is
appears that no details were mentioned regarding the date on which
the agricultural land of the respondent was inspected, the time at
which the inspection was conducted, or in whose presence the
inspection was carried out. No such details were mentioned in the
complaint, which is a vital document. Therefore, in the aforesaid
circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
charge against the respondent.
13. So far as the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 151 of
the Act is concerned, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions
of Section 151 of the Act, which are reproduced hereunder :
151. Cognizance of offences.–
No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act
except upon a complaint in writing made by the Appropriate Government
or Appropriate Commission or any of their officer authorised by them or a
Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector or licensee or the
generating company, as the case may be, for this purpose.
Provided that the court may also take cognizance of an offence punishable
under this Act upon a report of a police officer filed under section 173 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):Provided further that a
special court constituted under section 153 shall be competent to take
cognizance of an offence without the accused being committed to it for
trial.
Page 7 of 14
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 16:46:51 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1579/2012 (GJHC240439762012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
13.1 Looking to the aforesaid provision of law and in light of the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of
Gujarat v. Mohamad Nathabhai Sumara, Criminal Appeal No. 9
of 2009 , there is a clear violation of the provisions of Section 151 of
the Act in the present case and therefore, the trial Court has rightly
passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
14. At this juncture, it is required to be noted herein that there are
series of the judgments in connection with the Electricity Act, which
reads as under:-
STATE OF GUJARAT Versus JYOTIBEN JAGDISHBHAI JOISAR reported in
2018 LawSuit (Guj) 1292
STATE OF GUJARAT Versus SAJIDBHAI YAKUBBHAI PITHADIYA reported in
2015 LawSuit(Guj) 999
STATE OF GUJARAT Versus KHUMANSINH RANJITSINH JADEJA reported in
2022 LawSuit(Guj) 7441
STATE OF GUJARAT Versus ILIYAS MIYAULLAKHAN PATHAN & 1 reported
in 2014 LawSuit(Guj) 1727
STATE OF GUJARAT Versus MARIYAMBEN ELIYASBHAI LORU reported in
2015 LawSuit(Guj) 518
STATE OF GUJARAT Versus CHHATRASINH CHANDUBHAI PATANVADIA
reported in 2009 LawSuit(Guj) 122
BAROT VITTHALBHAI DAMODARDAS Vs. NATWARBHAI UMEDBHAI PATEL
AND ANR reported in 2009 (3) GLR 1974 ,2009 (2) GLH 135
15. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer the decision in case of
the State of Gujarat vs. Jayendrasinh Motisinh Zala reported in
2012(0) AIJEL-HC 226407 , wherein this Court has observed as
under:-
Page 8 of 14
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 16:46:51 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1579/2012 (GJHC240439762012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
"5. The investigating officer admitted in his cross examination that
there were number of residential houses located in vicinity of the
house where checking was done, however, statement of none of
such residents residing nearby was recorded. He admitted that
Panchnama of the place was not carried out, nor the Muddamal wires
etc. were recovered in presence of Panchas and even Panchnama
was never drawn to show any such recovery. He admitted that
Panchnama of the place was not carried out, nor the Muddamal wires
etc. were recovered in presence of Panchas and even Panchnama
was never drawn to show any such recovery. He admitted that as per
normal requirement, in the statement of consumer either signature
of the consumer was obtained or, if it were thumb impression,
signatures of two Panchas were obtained. However, statement (Exh.
17) did not bear signature of accused nor the thumb impression of
the person present was verified by any panch. He admitted that he
did not investigate as to who was Ranjanben. He admitted, after
seeing envelop of the notice (Exh.15) sent to the accused that it had
returned undelivered with the postal endorsement that no person
named therein had been staying at Mahelav.”
16. Even in the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of
Shakambari Industries vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
2005 (0) AIJEL-MH-131024, the Bombay High Court has held as
under:-
“4. Shri G. B. Lohiya submitted that under Section 151 of the
Electricity Act, 2003 no Court can take cognizance of an offence
punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made by
the Officer authorised. Shri Lohiya further submitted that when there
is prohibition for taking cognizance except upon a complaint in writing
the police could not have taken cognizance of the offence. The
reasoning is that even after completion of investigation if the police
presents charge-sheet the Court would not be in a position to take
cognizance thereof as the same is barred under section 151 of the
Electricity Act, 2003.
5. I find that though the police took cognizance of the offence
punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 no charge-
sheet can be filed and even if filed no cognizance thereof can be
taken by the Court concerned. Thus this is a fit case in which inherent
powers of this Court are required to be invoked for preventing the
abuse of the process of the Court. Hence the order:”
Page 9 of 14
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 16:46:51 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1579/2012 (GJHC240439762012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
17. The trial Court, after recording its reasons from paragraph 12
onwards of the impugned judgment and after referring to and relying
upon the decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the impugned judgment, recorded the
conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against
the respondent under Section 135 of the Act. The trial Court
accordingly passed the impugned judgment and order, which is in
consonance with the settled principles of law enunciated by this Court
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 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 there is no any
illegality and infirmity found in the judgment and order.
18. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the 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.
19. 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
Page 10 of 14
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 16:46:51 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1579/2012 (GJHC240439762012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
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
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.
20. 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.
Page 11 of 14
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 16:46:51 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1579/2012 (GJHC240439762012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
21. 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.
(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.
Page 12 of 14
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 16:46:51 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1579/2012 (GJHC240439762012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
(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.”
22. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears
that there is no credible evidence to connect the present accused with
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.
23. 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
Page 13 of 14
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 16:46:51 IST 2026
R/CR.A/1579/2012 (GJHC240439762012) JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2026
to be dismissed.
24. 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)
ANUSRI
Page 14 of 14
Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 16:46:51 IST 2026