Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Patel Ramanbhai Becharbhai on 24 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2129 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PATEL RAMANBHAI BECHARBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AMIT M BAROT(5868) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 24/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under
Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the
learned Special Judge (Electricity), Mehsana (hereinafter
referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Electricity
Case No. 13/2009 on 15.09.2010, whereby, the learned
Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence
Page 1 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
punishable under Sections 332, 504 and 506(2) of IPC.
1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as “the
accused” as he stood in the original case for the sake of
convenience, clarity and brevity.
2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case
are as under:
2.1 The accused – Ramanbhai Becharbhai Patel residing at
Bhanpur, Taluka, Vijayapur, District Mehsana was a
consumer of electricity of UGVCL and was given consumer
no. 21703/0021/8. On 24.01.2008, Junior Engineer –
Ashwinkumar Roopsinh Solanki, Junior Engineer –
Meethabhai R. Patel, Lineman – Maganbhai G. Katara,
Helper – Jayeshbhai V. Pandya and Helper Prakashbhai I.
Patel had gone to village Bhanpur for checking electricity
connections and they had gone to the house of the accused.
On checking the electricity connection, they found that even
though the accused was a consumer of electricity, he had
bypassed the meter by joining a black colour wire directly
from the electricity pole and was consuming electricity. That
as the team members had conducted the checking, the
Page 2 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
accused started abusing them and threatened to kill them
and tried to lock them in the house and obstructed the
public servants from discharging their duty. The complaint
was filed by the complainant – Ramanbhai Joytabhai Patel
at Vijapur Police Station which was registered as Vijapur
Police Station I – C.R. No. 24 of 2008 under Sections 332,
504 and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 39(2) of the Indian
Electricity Act.
2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of
the connected witnesses and seized the necessary
documents and after completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Vijapur and as the said offences against the
accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,
the case was committed to the Special Court, Mehsana as
per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and the case was registered as Special Electricity
Case No. 13/2009.
2.3 The accused was duly served with the summons and
the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it
Page 3 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were
provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207
of the Code. A charge at Exh. 4 was framed against the
accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at
Exh. 5 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the
charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken
on record.
2.4 The prosecution produced ten oral evidences and ten
documentary evidence to bring home the charge against the
accused. After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the
further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein,
the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on
record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or
examine witnesses on his behalf and stated that a false case
has been filed against him. After the arguments of the
learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were
heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement
and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the
charges levelled against him.
Page 4 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant – State has
filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial
Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the
learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and
during the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been
elicited in favor of the respondent. The case has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has
successfully established the case against the respondent
and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted,
illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the
reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are
improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned
judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the
appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Amit Barot for the
respondent. Perused the impugned judgement and order of
Page 5 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the
prosecution on record of the case.
5. Learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi has taken this Court
through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of
the case and submitted that the complainant has fully
supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned
judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged
this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the
respondent guilty for the offences.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Amit Barot has submitted that
the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in
proper perspective and no interference is required in the
impugned judgement and order.
6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the
present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the
observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of
interference in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa
& Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC
415, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:
Page 6 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313, this
Court stated:
“While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of
the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised
while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of
appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence.
However, one significant difference is that an order of
acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court,
where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence
and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not
reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a
different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear
in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour
of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit
of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should
assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial
court”.
From the above decisions, in our considered view, the
following general principles regarding powers of appellate
Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of
acquittal emerge;
(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
Page 7 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
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 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.
7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well
crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is presumption
Page 8 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally
culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned
Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the
learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the
prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable
doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the
accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re
appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after
re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court
was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate
Court to interfere in the same.
8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the
evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the
prosecution has examined PW1 – Ramanbhai Joytabhai
Patel at Exh. 15 and the witness is the complainant who
has supported the contents of the complaint. The
complainant has stated that after checking the electricity
connection, Checking Sheet No. 0298 dated 24.01.2008
was prepared and it was signed by all connected persons
and the Rojkaam was also prepared. The muddamaal was
Page 9 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
seized and the complaint is produced at Exh. 16. The bill of
theft of Rs. 18,393.41/- was given to the accused –
Becharbhai Ramdas Patel and the bill was paid and they
had also filed a case under the Electricity Act for theft of
electricity at the Sabarmati Police Station. The muddamaal
was kept in his custody. During the cross examination by
the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has
stated that he does not have any personal knowledge about
the incident and he had given the complaint on the basis of
the information given by his subordinates. The information
was given on the same day at around 08.30 and he did not
visit the place of incident before giving the complaint. The
electricity connection was in the name of Becharbhai
Ramdas who has expired and he did not inquire how many
sons Becharbhai Ramdas had and the case of theft of
electricity was compromised.
8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 – Ashwinkumar
Roopsinh Solanki at Exh. 17 and the witness was working
as a Junior Engineer in UGVCL on the date of the incident.
The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and
Page 10 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
during the cross examination by the learned advocate for
the accused, the witness has stated that he has not
produced any evidence to show that he had the right to
check the electricity connection. The Deputy Engineer
would be the main authority of the Subdivision and at that
time R.J. Patel was the Deputy Engineer. The Superior
Officer had intimation to go for electricity checking and they
had gone in a contract vehicle for the checking. They are
given identity cards by the electricity company which have
to be worn and in the statement before the police, they did
not mention that the identity cards were worn in such a
manner that they could be seen. The Superior Officer did
not tell them to put on the identity cards in such a manner
that it could be seen and at the time of the checking, it was
the month of January and it was cold and all of them had
worn sweaters. He does not remember the number of the
vehicle or the name of the driver who had gone along with
them and when they went for electricity checking, they did
not disclose their identity to the person at whose place they
had gone for checking. They had gone and halted the
Page 11 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
vehicle at the house of Ramanbhai Becharbhai and there
are a number of houses surrounding the place. There is a
10 to 12 feet wide road between both the houses and they
had taken information about the owner of the house. The
accused and his family members were present but he does
not know the exact number of persons that were present.
They did not collect any documentary evidence regarding
the ownership of the house and all the necessary procedure
was done at the spot. That in the statement before the
police, he did not state that the accused had threatened to
lock them in the house and had created an atmosphere
that would create a sense of insecurity and that the
accused had threatened to remove the air from the vehicle.
8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 – Ramanbhai
Mohanbhai Patel at Exh. 21 and PW4 – Shivabai Revabai
Patel at Exh. 22. Both the witnesses are the panch
witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offence which is
produced at Exh. 33. Both the witnesses have merely stated
that the police had called them and had asked them to affix
their signature but they did not read the panchnama and
Page 12 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
nobody had showed them the place of offence. The
witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution
and have been declared hostile and have been cross-
examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to
support the case of the prosecution has come on record.
8.3 The prosecution has examined PW5 – Mithabhai
Ramanlal Patel at Exh. 23 and the witness was a member
of the checking team on the date of the incident. The
witness has supported the case of the prosecution and
during the cross-examination by the learned advocate for
the accused the witness has stated that about 25 to 30
persons had gathered there and the atmosphere became
tense and they immediately left the place and came to
Vijapur. When they had gone to the place of checking, the
person in whose name the electricity connection was
existing, was not present and they did not inquire as to who
had the actual physical possession of the house. The
accused had told them that he does not know them and
they had filled up the Checking Sheet at the place and had
done the rojakam at the office.
Page 13 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
8.4 The prosecution has examined PW6 – Maganbhai
Galjibhai Katara at Exh. 28 and the witness was the
Lineman of UGVCL on the date of the incident and was a
member of the checking team that had gone to the house of
the accused. The witness has stated that they had checked
the whole village and the Checking Sheet was filled up by
his Superior Officer and signed; and thereafter they came to
the office and did the other procedure. The witness has not
supported the case of the prosecution and has been
declared hostile and has been cross-examined by the
learned advocate for the accused. The witness has stated
that when they had gone for checking they did not verify as
to in whose name the electricity connection was existing
and his officers did not verify whether the house belonged
to the accused. His Superior Officers had told the accused
to affix his signature and they had disconnected the meter
connection and taken the same. There were a number of
persons residing besides the place where they had gone for
checking and the accused did not affix his signature and
hence, they went and informed their Superior Officer – R.J.
Page 14 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
Patel about the same and R.J. Patel told them that as the
accused had refused to affix his signature, they were to file
a complaint against him. The complaint in the name of
Ashwinbhai was prepared at the office and they were all
instructed to give their statements to the police as per the
complaint. That he had stated the correct facts in his
examination in chief.
8.5 The prosecution has examined PW7 – Prakashbhai
Ishwarbhai Patel at Exh. 29 and the witness was working
as the Helper in UGVCL on the date of the incident. The
witness has stated that on 24.01.2008 they had gone for
checking along with the other members of the team and the
accused had signed the Checking Sheet and the Rojkaam
and they had gone to the office thereafter. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused the
witness has stated that five of them had gone from the
office in the vehicle of the GEB and on the day of checking
they had conducted the checking at four places. Their
leader was Ashwinbhai Solanki and M.R. Patel and the
house where they had checked was a veranda and two
Page 15 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
rooms. He does not know how many points and how many
plugs were there in the house and four to five persons were
present in the house at that time. They had parked the
vehicle on the road and the checking was done in the
veranda. He does not know whether they had completed the
procedure and the place was in a residential area and there
were a number of residences surrounding the place and a
huge crowd had gathered at the time of the checking. The
accused had refused to sign the Checking Sheet and his
Superior Officer had told the accused that he had
committed a theft of electricity and to sign the paper or they
would disconnect his electricity connection. That after they
came to the office it was decided to file the complaint.
8.6 The prosecution has examined PW8 – Jayeshkumar
Bachubhai Pandya at Exh. 30 and the witness was working
as a Helper in UGVCL and has supported the case of the
prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned
advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that a
number of persons had gathered at the place while they
were conducting the checking and they did not verify as to
Page 16 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
in whose name the electricity connection was existing. They
did not verify about the owner or possessor of the house
and after the entire procedure was concluded, the Checking
Sheet was remaining to be signed. The accused had refused
to sign the Checking Sheet and they had all returned to the
office and met R.J. Patel who told them to file the case.
They all went to the Police Station and gave the complaint
and they were told to give their statements as per the
complaint.
8.7 The prosecution has examined PW9 – Laxmanbhai
Nemaji at Exh. 31 and the witness is the Investigating
Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him
during investigation of the offence. During the cross-
examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the
witness has stated that the complaint was given with an
outward number from the office of the complainant and
there were allegations that the accused had deterred the
public servant from discharging their duty. He had only
received the complaint at about 11.30 and the incident had
occurred between 07.00 to 07.15 hours. He had gone to the
Page 17 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
place of incident and prepared the panchnama but he did
not investigate as to in whose name was the electricity
connection and who was the owner of the house. He had
recorded the statement of Kachrabhai Becharbhai – the
elder brother of the accused but he did not state in whose
name was the electricity connection and who was in
possession of the house. When he had gone to the place of
incident, two ladies were present but he did not record their
statements and he did not mention in the staion diary that
they had refused to give their statements. No evidence
regarding the ownership or possession of the house was
collected by him during investigation and he did not inquire
the same from the surrounding neighbours. He did not
inquire as to why the accused had refused to sign the
Checking Sheet and besides the employees of the GEB, no
other independent witnesses had supported the case of the
complainant. During investigation, it was also found that
the vehicle by which the employees had gone for raid was a
vehicle which was taken on contract but he did not record
the statement of the driver of the vehicle.
Page 18 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
8.8 The prosecution has examined PW10 – Rameshbhai
Bhalabhai at Exh. 36 and the witness was working as an
ASI at the Vijapur Police Station when he had received the
written complaint of Deputy Engineer – A. R. Patel of Uttar
Gujarat Vij Company Limited and he had registered the
complaint at Vijapur Police Station I – C.R. No. 24 of 2008.
9. On minute examination of the entire evidence of the
prosecution, the evidence that has emerged on record is
that the complainant was not present at the place of
checking and was not an eyewitness to the incident. The
incident has occurred on 24.01.2008 and in the entire
evidence, there is no iota of evidence that the house that
was checked by the checking members of the UGVCL
belonged to the accused. As per the say of the complainant,
the electricity case was compounded and all the witnesses
have stated that at the time of the checking, which was in a
residential area and there were many residences
surrounding the place of checking and a number of persons
had gathered at that place but there are no independent
witnesses examined by the prosecution. Moreover, all the
Page 19 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
team members, as per the rules, were to have their identity
cards in such a manner that their identity would be known
but they did not have the identity cards and as it was
winter, they all were wearing sweater. In the evidence, it
has also emerged that the accused asked them who they
were and PW6 – Maganbhai Galjibhai Katara has
categorically stated that as the accused did not sign the
Checking Sheet, they returned to the office and told their
Superior Officer that the accused had refused to sign the
Checking Sheet and hence, the complaint was filed and
they all were instructed to record their statements as per
the complaint. Moreover, in the evidence of the
Investigating Officer, it has also emerged that two ladies
were in the house but their statements have not been
recorded during investigation and it has also emerged on
record that the jeep by which the team members for
checking had gone was a jeep that was on contract basis
with the UGVCL but the jeep driver who was an
independent witness has not been examined before the
learned Trial Court. Moreover, the witnesses have stated
Page 20 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
that the muddamaal was seized but no muddamaal has
been produced before the learned Trial Court and there is
no iota of evidence that the place where the checking was
conducted belonged to the accused.
10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of
Chandrappa (supra), the learned Trial Court has
appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and
there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in
the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned
Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court
is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court
was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the
charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the
learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no
illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned
Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with
the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of
acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court
finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment
Page 21 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/2129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/04/2025
undefined
and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and
resultantly, the same is dismissed.
11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal
passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity), Mehsana
in Special Electricity Case No. 13/2009 on 15.09.2010, is
hereby confirmed.
12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings
be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VASIM S. SAIYED
Page 22 of 22
Uploaded by VASIM SHABBIR SAIYED(HC01902) on Thu Apr 24 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 25 04:38:35 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link