[2025:RJ-JP:27992] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 228/2022 Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd, Ajmer ----Appellant Versus 1. Firoz Kathat S/o Shri Bahadur Kathat, R/o Mandeda Ps Beawar District Ajmer 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Parinitoo Jain, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 15/07/2025 1. Instant leave to appeal is preferred by appellant Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to “AVVNL”) dissatisfied and aggrieved from judgment of acquittal dated 30.05.2022 in sessions case No.34/2021 passed by learned Special Judge (Electricity Act Cases) No.1, Ajmer whereby respondent accused Firoz was acquitted from charge of offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act. 2. Learned counsel for appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal submitted that after on-sport checking of electricity theft, a VCR was prepared and on the basis of VCR, report was registered under Section 135 of Electricity Act. She further submitted that after filing charge-sheet appellant has examined as many as 4 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents but no rebuttal is filed by respondent No.1. She further submitted that the trial court without considering the evidence of appellant has acquitted respondent accused. [2025:RJ-JP:27992] (2 of 4) [CRLLA-228/2022] 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent. 4. Heard learned counsel for parties along with learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 5. On the basis of vigilance search on 27.05.2020 at premises of Firoz, electricity theft was found and VCR No.1275-22 dated 27.05.2022 was prepared. On the basis of this VCR, FIR No.135/2020 under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. After framing the charge, appellant complainant has examined 4 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but not submitted any defence evidence. The trial court has acquitted respondent No.1 from charge under Section 135 of Electricity Act. 6. After considering the submissions, the trial court has noticed that VCR be prepared on 27.05.2020 was incorrect and wrong and after complaint by respondent No.1, they have prepared a fresh and new VCR. The observation of trial court is based on admission of witnesses of appellant and same is reproduced as under: “bl rjg ls vfHk;kstu i{k us vkjksfir vijk/k ds laca/k esa tks lk{; ijhf{kr djokbZ gS mldk lw{erk ls foospu djsa rks xokg ih- MCY;w- 1 “kjhQ dkBkr us ekSds ij ifjlj ls oh-lh-vkj- ugha Hkjus dk dFku fd;k gSA xokg ih- MCY;w- 2 jkef[kykMh us eq[; ijh{k.k esa fQjkst dkBkr }kjk edku dh jsfyax ds ikl ls fo|qr dh pksjh gsrq rkj ?kj o nqdku esa yxk j[kus dk dFku fd;k gS] ds ikl ls fo|qr dh pksjh gsrq rkj ?kj o nqdku esa yxk j[kus dk dFku fd;k gS] tc fd xokg ih- MCY;w- 3 fo’.kqnRr nqcs us viuh ftjg esa Li’V :i ls dFku djrk gS fd fQjkst dksBkr ds lfoZl ykbZu o ehVj ls fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ NsM+&NkM+ ugha dh vkSj uk gh fldh izdkj dh pksjh dh xbZA bl xokg ds c;kuksa esa fQjkst dkBkr }kjk xyr oh-lh-vkj- Hkjus ckcr [2025:RJ-JP:27992] (3 of 4) [CRLLA-228/2022] mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ls f”kdk;r fd;k tkuk o fQjkst dk fjokbZTM bLVhesV cuk;k x;kA xokg ih- MCY;w- 4 bUnz flag Li’V :i ls bl rF; dks Lohdkj djrk gS fd vfHk;qDr fQjkst [kku }kjk lfoZl ykbZu o ehVj ls fdlh rjg dh dksbZ NsM+&NkM+ ugha dhA ;g xokg Hkh fQjkst dkBkr }kjk mPpkf/kdkjh] iqfyl v/kh{kd] lrdZrk] vtesj dks f”kdk;r djus ij izkFkhZ dk fjokbTM ,LvhesV o uksfVl cukuk Hkh dgrk gS o igys ,LvhesV xyr cuk;k tkuk dgrk gSA bl rjg ls vfHk;kstu xokgku esa fojks/kkHkklh dFku ifjyf{kr gq,s gSa ,oa Lo;a ifjoknh o vuqla/kkukf/kdkjh us vfHk;qDr }kjk ehVj o lfoZl ykbZu ls fdlh izdkj dh pksjh djus ls bUdkj fd;k gS o vfHk;kstu xokgku dh lk{; ls ;g rF; Hkh vk;k gS fd oh-lh-vkj- xyr Hkjus o f”kdk;r gksus ij fjokbZTM oh-lh-vkj- Hkh xbZA” 7. Aforesaid clearly indicated that the assessment and notice were incorrect and on complaint by respondent No.1, same were corrected by appellant. The appellant has failed to prove essential ingredient of offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka : (2007) 4 SCC 415; Nagabhushan v. State of Karnataka : 2021 (5) SCC 222 and Rajesh Prasad V. The State of Bihar & Anr.: (2022) 3 SCC 407, specifically observed that in case of consideration of an appeal from order of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of accused and these presumptions are - firstly, presumption of innocence under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of innocence is certainly not weakened, but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthend by the Trial Court. [2025:RJ-JP:27992] (4 of 4) [CRLLA-228/2022] 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Atley v. State Of Uttar Pradesh : AIR 1955 SC 807; Sanwat Singh & Others v. State Of Rajasthan : 1961 AIR SC 715; M. G. Agarwal v. State Of Maharashtra : 1963 AIR SC 200; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra : (1973) 2 SCC 793; Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat : (1996) 9 SCC 225; Ajit Savant Majagvai vs. State of Karnataka : (1997) 7 SCC 110 and Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana : (2009) 12 SCC 351, have considered the role of Appellate Court in considering situation arising out of order of acquittal and settled the proposition that the Appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and re-consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, however, Appellate Court is duty bound to keep in mind to that there is double presumption in favour of accused. 10. In view of discussion made hereinabove, no case is made out for grant of leave, hence same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, leave to appeal is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /35