Court No. - 11
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 7369 of 2009
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Anil Swaroop
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. assisted by Sri Pawan Kumar Srivastava brief holder on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 05.06.2009 passed by Special Judge/EC Act Muzaffarnagar in Special Case No. 68/9 of 2007 by which the Trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent from the charge under section 135 (1) (b) of Electricity Act 2003.
In nutshell the prosecution case is that M/s. Sukkum Graviours Private Ltd owned by accused/respondent Anil Swaroop was situated on plot no. 15 and 16 in Industrial Estate Muzaffarnagar Electricity connection HV-2 having capacity of 298 KV was sanctioned. That factory was situated in the jurisdiction of Sri Vikram Singh Chahar U.P. Khand Adhikari Vidyut Khand III on checking of the factory the seal of electricity connection were found tampered and flow of current was also different and the meter was running 10 time slower then the check meter.
Trial Court after perusal of record gave his findings quoted as here in below;
,& i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr lk{; ekSf[kd ,oa vfHkys[kh; ds lE;d rFkk lexz fo'kys'k.k ,oa ewY;kadu ds mijkar eSa bUgha fu"d"kksZ ij igaqprk gwW fd pSfdax fnukafdr 21-12-2006 ls yxHkx 6 ekg iwoZ ls igys ls vfHk;qDr dh QSDVhｪ yxHkx cUn Fkh] mlesa mRiknu dk;Z ugha ds cjkcj gks jgk Fkk] fo|qr dh [kir cgqr de gks jgh Fkh] ftl dkj.k fefueu pktsZt ds fcYl tkjh fd;s tk jgs Fks ;s dkiksZjs'ku dh vksj ls vius i= fnukafdr 24-7-2006 esa bl ckor yksM QSDVj de gksus dh tkudkjh pkgh x;h Fkh ftl ij vfHk;qDr }kjk fnukad 10-8-2006 dks QSDVh ｪ ds fiNys 3 ekg ls cUn gksus dk rF; muds laKku esa yk;k x;k FkkA fnukad 23-11-2006 dks yksM 75 ds0 oh0 rd de djkus dk izkFkZuk i= vfHk;qDr } kjk izLrqr dj fn;k x;k FkkA bu lHkh ls ;g fl) gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDr 6&7 gtkj ;wfuV izfrekg fo|qr mi;ksx djrs gq, 21 gtkj ;wfuV izfrekg dk fcy vnk dj jgk FkkA lk{; ls ;g Hkh fl) gksrk gS fd fnukad 21-12-2006 dks ftl le; pSd ehVj yxkus ds fy, ehVj :e dh lhys gVk;h x;h Fkh rFkk rkykas dks dkVk x;k Fkk] lHkh lhys nqjLr ,oa bUVSDV Fkh] os VsEiMZ ugha FkhA fo|qr ehVj dCtk esa ysus ds mijkUr ijh{k.k gsrq fdlh iz;ksx 'kkyk esa ugh Hkstk x;k ;gka rd fd bl lEca/k esa vfHk;qDr }kjk fd;s x;s fyf[kr vuqjks/kksa dks Hkh vLohdkj fd;k x;kA dksbZ ijh{k.k fjiksVZ rFkk dksbZ ,e0 vkj0 vkbZ0 fjiksVZ fo|qr dh pksjh ds lUnHkZ eas ifjoknh dkiksZjs'ku }kjk izkIr dj izLrqr ugha dh x;hA ewy ehVj ds vUnj fdlh fjeksV vkijsfVM fMokbl ds Lfkkfir djus dk rF; fdlh oSKkfud lk{; ls fl) ugha gks ldk gSA bl izdkj vfHk;kstu i{k vfHk;qDr vfuy Lo:i ds fo:) ;g vkjksi fdlh Hkh n`f"V ls fl) ugha dj ldk gS fd vfHk;qDr vius ehVj esa NsM NkM dj fjeksV lapkfyr ;U= yxkdj fo|qr miHkksx dh xfr dks /khek dj fctyh dh pksjh dj jgk FkkA vfHk;qDr vfuy Lo:i dks bl izdkj fo| qr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 135 ds vkjksikas dk nk"khs ugha ik;k tkrk] QyLo:i vfHk;qDr mijksDr vkjksiks ls foeqDr gksus dk ik= ,oa vf/kdkjh gSA Perusal of record shows that by stretch of any imagination it cannot be said that view taken by the Trial Court is not a possible view and a plausible view, There is no illegality or irregularity and perversity in the impugned judgment.
Reference may be made to the recent judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Bannareddy & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors reported in 2018 (5) SCC 790 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
11. Before we proceed further to peruse the finding of the High Court, it is relevant to discuss the power and jurisdiction of the High Court while interfering in an appeal against acquittal. It is well settled principle of law that the High Court should not interfere in the well reasoned order of the trial court which has been arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court should give due regard to the findings and the conclusions reached by the trial court unless strong and compelling reasons exist in the evidence itself which can dislodge the findings itself. This principle has further been elucidated in the case of Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 186, para 13, wherein this Court observed that: “The High Court will interfere in appeals against acquittals, only where the trial court makes wrong assumptions of material facts or fails to appreciate the evidence properly. If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused had it tried the case. The very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
12. It is not in dispute that the presumption of innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened against the acquitted accused by the judgment in his favor. [Vide Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490 in para. 94].
27. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the prosecution was not able to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the High Court should not have re-appreciated evidences in its entirety, especially when there existed no grave infirmity in the findings of the trial court. There exists no justification behind setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, especially when the prosecution case suffers from several contradictions and infirmities. No specific assertion could be proved regarding the role and involvement of the accused persons. Further, certain actions of the victim-respondents themselves are dubious, for instance admitting themselves later in a Multi-speciality hospital without proper cause. It has further come to our notice that respondents have already compromised and have executed a compromise deed to that extent, though the same is not the basis for our conclusion.
Reference may also be made to the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of Sanmwat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1961 SC 715, Murlidhar @ Gidda & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka decided on 09.04.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 791 of 2011, Basappa Vs. State of Karnataka decided on 27.02.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 2014, Ashok Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Decided on 15.04.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 1508 of 2005, Ramesh Harijan vs. State of U.P. 2012 AIR SCW 2990 and Murugesan v. State through Inspector of Police reported in 2012 AIR SCW 5627.
Thus, in view of aforesaid consistent legal position as elaborated above and also in view of the fact that learned A.G.A. has failed to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings so recorded in the impugned order, no case for interference has been made out.
It is an established position of law that if the court below has taken a view which is a possible view in a reasonable manner, then the same shall not be interfered with moreso in view of the fact that more than 12 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 2006.
After perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the trial court after a thorough marshalling of the facts of the case and a microscopic scrutiny of the evidence on record has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused respondents and the findings recorded by the learned trial judge in the impugned judgment are based upon evidence and supported by cogent reasons.
No interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted. Accordingly leave to appeal is refused and application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Vikram