1 2025:CGHC:27540-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1931 of 2025 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited (CSPTCL) Through K.S. Manothiya at Present Executive Director (PC & RA) CSPTCL, Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. V. Subramaniam S/o Lt. Sri Ram Krishnamurthy Aged About 70 Years R/o Jagriti Sign Apartment, Bangla No. 6, R.R. Nagar, Old Owen Palli, Secunderabad P.S.- Vovenpalli District- Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) Now Telangana Present Address - Plot No. 16, R and D Defence Enclave, P.S. Boinpally, Secunderabad, (Telangana) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur, Police Station Telibandha District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Complainant : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.06.25 17:46:30 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.06 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent No. 2/State. 2. The appellant/complainant has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 19.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Electricity Act) First Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 133 of 2013 by which, the accused/respondent No. 1 has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the accused Company which is in the name and title of M/s Seshasaila Power & Engineering (P) Limited which is situated at E-16, Green Park, Vishal Nagar Raipur applied for the permission from the present appellant/CSPTCL on 30.09.2009 for to sell 6.7 Mega Watt of electricity generated at its plant to any buyer outside the State under “Open Access Method”, similarly the accused had also applied for sale of 6.7 Mega Watt electricity through Indian Energy Exchange and after scrutinizing the application of the accused permission, no-objection was granted to the Company on 16.10.2009 by the Chief Engineer, State Load Dispatch Centre, 3 Chhattisgarh Power Transmission Company for sale of maximum 6.7 MW electricity for the period from 17.10.2009 to 31.10.2009. The accused Company was granted permission/no objection for different periods on its various applications from 17.10.2009 to 31.05.2010 and on the basis of the above permissions, the accused company kept getting the schedule of supply of electricity, during the said period the accused also acquired approval from the Regional Load Dispatch Center, New Delhi by executing bilateral agreement and through Indian Energy Exchange, through this process the accused Company had to put a total of 24.32494 million units of electricity into the grid, but in return, the accused Company made available only 14.401444 million units to the grid of the CSPTCL because the accused Company sold electricity to buyers (such as Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Jaipur Vidyut Vyapar Nigam, BESCOM (Karnataka), UPPCL, APPCC and anonymous buyers) and in return the accused received an estimated amount of Rs. 12,28,16,507.10/- from them. The accused by using the illegitimate method deliberately and dishonestly cheated the appellant Company by obtaining payment for the electricity which was not put into the grid of CSPTCL. It is further alleged that the payment of unscheduled interchange charges and other charges (wheeling charges and interest) which was to be payable to the appellant Company for providing less electricity than the scheduled amount, which is estimated to be Rs. 4,28,76,407.94/-. The appellant/complainant when came to knowledge about the embezzlement done by the accused Company submitted written report before the respondent No. 2/Station House Officer Telibanda Raipur, the respondent No. 2 registered the FIR against the accused/respondent No. 1 for the offences punishable under 4 Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, ‘Act of 2003’) at Police Station Telibanda, District Raipur on 29.07.2010. 4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, acquitted the accused/respondent No. 1 from the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of the IPC and Section 135(1)(a) of the Act of 2003 vide judgment dated 19.02.2025 by giving him the benefit of doubt. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the impugned order dated 19.02.2024, is bad in law, as well facts available on record. The learned trial court, had committed illegality in not providing proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant, before passing such illegal order. Further, the learned trial court, while adjudicating the present case had totally ignored that for want of fulfillment of the provisions of Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act the document filed as Ex.P/4 cannot be relied upon. The learned trial Court has ignored the documents which are legally admissible evidence under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872. He further submits that the documents submitted by the appellant as per the Ex.P/4 are official documents which were maintained in the usual course of business and fulfill all the requirements of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. The learned trial Court has legally erred in declaring the entire documents as inadmissible. The relevant portion of Ex.P/14 clearly states that merely some documents are fax and xerox copies, but the same was duly authenticated by the responsible officer which makes the same certified copy of the original which, and therefore, the provisions of Secondary Evidence are not attracted. The learned trial Court has failed 5 to consider the documents produced by the prosecution and has wrongly acquitted the accused. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused assigning one of the reason that the accused is one of the Director of the Company M/s Seshasaila Power & Engineering (P) Limited which consists of total 09 Directors whereby the appellant Company has lodged the FIR only against 02 Directors whereby as per (Ex.P/135) which is minutes of meeting which clearly shows that the accused is the signatory authority and was directly dealing with the appellant Company, therefore, the FIR has been lodged against the accused after proper inquiry by the prosecution agency and hence, the finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. Further, looking to entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and submits that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused/respondent No. 1, in which no interference is called for by this Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal and as well as the record of the learned trial Court annexed with the present petition by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant. 9. Learned Special Judge (Electricity Act) First Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) while acquitting the accused/respondent No. 1 has 6 observed that after examining the K.S. Manothia (PW-2), who is the author of the FIR has stated that M/s Seshasaila Power and Engineering Private Limited generates electricity and puts it in the electricity grid and the monitoring of the said meters is done by the employees of the appellant/complainant at the end of every week, at the place of putting electricity in the grid, a meter of the electricity department is installed, in which the electricity is recorded, which is monitored by the employees of the electricity department and further the Company can sell electricity only after obtaining permission for selling electricity. The learned trial Court also observed that as per the statement of the Investigating Officer, Ashok Kumar Joshi (PW-5) has admitted in cross-examination that in the FIR (Ex.P/3), a crime was registered against accused V. Subramaniam, V. Radha Madhavi and others, but the other Directors of the said Company has authorized the accused for the entire work of the Company, but in this regard, no such evidence has been seized by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, under the overall investigation of the case, the complainant has failed to produce material evidence to establish beyond doubt the contents of the crime alleged against the accused. The complainant has been refuting the defence suggestion, due to which the allegations made by the complainant regarding the role of the accused in the crime do not appear to be credible, which as per the conclusion lacks material confirmation on the facts of the crime alleged against the accused. Thus, the complainant has failed to establish the triable question against the accused beyond doubt. Therefore, it is a well-established principle of law that if the triable facts against the accused are not being established beyond doubt, the benefit of this should be given to the accused. Hence, 7 giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, the accused was acquitted of the charges of the crime under Section 420 and 409 of the IPC and Section 135(1)(a) of the Act of 2003. 10. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and other evidence available on record, it cannot held that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the accused/respondent No. 1 from the aforesaid offences are perverse or contrary to record, thus, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 11. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 12. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits, the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan