[1.0] Present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) has been preferred by the applicant – original complainant – Torrent Power Ltd. to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.12.2010 passed by the learned Special Court (Electricity Case), Court No.9, Ahmedabad in Electricity Special Case No.15 of 2006 by which the learned Special Court has acquitted respondent No.2 herein – original accused for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). [2.0] Facts leading to filing of the present application in nutshell are as follows:
[2.1] That on the basis of the inspection carried out by the checking squad of the original complainant on 07.07.2004, as it was found that there were scratches on the electric meter and as it was found that the accused has committed offence punishable under Section 135(1) (b) of the Act and after the meter was sent to the laboratory and it was apprehended that there was electricity theft by the accused, the complaint came to be filed by the original complainant against the accused for the offence under Section 135(1)(b) of the Act. The FIR was registered as C.R. No.II403 of 2005 with GEB Sabarmati Police Station. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the chargesheet in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.14, Ahmedabad and as the case was exclusively triable by the Special Court (Electricity), the same was transferred to the Special Court. That the charge came to be framed against the accused at Exh.25, plea of the accused was recorded and the accused pleaded no guilty. Therefore, the accused came to be tried for the aforesaid offence.
[2.2] To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution examined four witnesses at Exhs.33, 42, 49 and 52 and also produced documentary evidences except the meter which was alleged to have been tampered with. That thereafter, after the evidence was closed, further statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC and he denied any case against him for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b) of the Act. That both the sides submitted the written submissions. On appreciation of evidence and on completion of the trial, the learned Special Court has acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b) of the Act by giving benefit of doubt by observing that though the allegation is with respect to tampering of the meter and thereby committing the theft of electricity, the meter which was alleged to have been tampered with is not seized and produced as muddamal before the Court.
[3.0] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Court, the applicant herein – original complainant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC.
[4.0] Shri K.B. Pujara, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant – original complainant has vehemently submitted that the learned Special Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the respondent No.2 accused. It is submitted that as such the inspection report/checking report was signed by the accused though denying the allegations the report and even the meter was tested in the laboratory in presence of the accused, therefore, merely because the meter which was alleged to have been tampered with was not seized as a muddamal and produced before the Court, the learned Special Court has materially erred in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that as such it can be said to be the negligence on the part of the IO for which the complainant should not be made to suffer.
Making above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow the present Criminal Revision Application.
[5.0] Having heard Shri Pujara, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant – original complainant, Shri L.R. Poojara, learned APP appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 State and Shri Ruturaj Meena, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 – original complainant and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Special Court acquitting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b) of the Act, by giving benefit of doubt to the accused and the evidence on record which has been produced along with the revision application, it appears to the Court that as such no illegality has been committed by the learned Special Court in acquitting the accused. It is required to be noted that the allegation against the accused was committing theft of electricity by tampering with the electric meter and on the allegation that on the meter there were scratches and the said scratches were by use of the magnet frequently so that the meter runs slow. However, to prove the scratches on the meter and/or the electricity theft by using the magnet, the meter which was alleged to have been tampered is not produced as muddamal. Under the circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the scratches on the meter and consequently committing electricity theft by the accused. It may be true that as such it was the duty of the IO to recover and/or seize the meter which was alleged to have been tampered with and it can also be said that there was a lapse and/or negligence on the part of the concerned IO. However, when the deposition Electrical Inspector of the complainant Electricity Company was recorded, he ought to have produced the same during his deposition/evidence. However, the complainant has failed to produce the meter which was alleged to have been tampered with as a muddamal. Under the circumstances, in absence of the meter which was alleged to have been tampered with produced as a muddamal when the learned Special Court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused and consequently, has acquitted the accused, it cannot be said that the learned Special Court has committed any error and/or illegality which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
[6.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, presnt Criminal Revision Application fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(M.R. Shah, J.) Menon