HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 615 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.04.2024 passed by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Special Case No.520 of 2014, State of U.P. Vs. Shivdutt Sharma, arising out of FIR No.487 of 2013, under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District- Bulandshahr. 2. Heard Sri Satendra Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Prosecution Case :- 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.07.2013 at about 12.05 p.m. a checking team of the Electricity Department, Bulandshahr headed by Assistant Engineer(Meter), Sunil Kumar along with lineman Shubhash Chand and Harish Chand Yadav (Inspector, Vigilance Team-1), Ghaziabad, Constable Rajendra, Constable Rishi Kumar Prajapati and other officials inspected the premises of respondent Shiv Dutt Sharma. 4. It is alleged that the respondent was found committing theft of electricity by bypassing the meter and using a load of 1973 watt for domestic purposes. The electricity connection was disconnected and a case under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 was lodged. After investigation of the case, a charge-sheet was submitted for offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act against the respondent Shiv Dutt Sharma. Trial Court Findings :- 5. The learned Trial court, after appreciation of evidences on record, returned a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Baleshwar Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Rahul Pandey Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Limited .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Point for consideration :- 6. The only question before this Court at the stage of admission is whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court suffers from any illegality, perversity or material error warranting interference. Analysis :- 7. Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the trial court has rightly appreciated the material contradictions and deficiencies in the prosecution case:- (i) Failure to produce material evidence :- Though the prosecution alleged that the videography of the inspection was conducted, the same has not been produced before the Court. P.W.-1 complainant, Dhanveer Singh Nagar, J.E. Enforcement Team, himself admitted in his cross-examination that he does not know who conducted the videography and where the view was stored. The alleged video has not been produced before the Court. Non-production of such material evidence creates serious doubts regarding the alleged inspection. (ii) No seizure or recovery memo of alleged materials : It is admitted by the prosecution witnesses that - (a) No list of electrical appliances allegedly being used was prepared. (b) The alleged wire used for bypassing was neither seized nor produced before the Court. (c) When the connection was disconnected and the wire was removed, no seizure memo was prepared, which is a serious lapse on the part of prosecution. (iii) Deficiencies in Inspection Report The inspection report itself suffers from inconsistencies. The total load is mentioned as 1973 watt, whereas P.W.- 1 Dhanveer Singh Nagar admitted in his deposition that the correct load should have been 1953 watt and it is also admitted that the load of 1953 watt was less than the sanction load. Such discrepancies go to the root of the prosecution case. (iv) Lack of Specific evidence regarding meter and bypass:- The prosecution witnesses failed to state :- (a) Where exactly the meter was installed. (b) Whether the meter was sealed and taken into custody. (c) Whether the alleged tampering was scientifically verified. C372 No. 615 of 2024 2 No material has been brought on record to establish that the meter was actually bypassed. (v) Non- preparation of seizure memo and non-compliance of procedure :- P.W.-1 Dhanveer Singh Nagar and P.W.-2 A.E.(Meter) Sunil Kumar have admitted that - (a) No seizure memo was prepared for the illegal materials. (b) No inventory of seized items was made. (c) No independent witness was associated. Such lapses are fatal to the prosecution case. (vi) Nature of evidence:- The entire prosecution case rests on the testimony of departmental officials, which is not corroborated by any independent witness or documentary evidence. In absence of reliable corroboration, the testimony does not inspire confidence. Legal Position 8. It is well settled in an appeal against acquittal interference by the appellate court is warranted only when the findings of the trial court are perverse and wholly unsustainable. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnatka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 has held that where two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the order of acquittal. Conclusion :- 10. In the present case, the trial court has taken a plausible and reasonable view based on the evidence on record. No illegality, perversity or material irregularity has been pointed out so as to warrant interference by this Court. 11. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. February 17, 2026 P. Pandey C372 No. 615 of 2024 3 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad