1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 400 of 2018 Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd, Through Assistant Engineer, Sub Division (Distribution) H. S. Shukla (Operation And Maintenance) Division Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, ... Applicant/Complainant versus Umanath Dewangan S/o Late Parmanand Dewangan Aged About 55 Years R/o Dewangan Muhalla Balauda, P. S. Balauda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent/Accused For Appellant : Shri Shashwat Yechuri, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : None, though served. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Judgment on Board 04/11/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal filed by the appellant / State under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. arises out of the judgment dated 16.11.2016 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003) Dist. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) in Electrical Criminal Case No. 244/2015, whereby the learned trial trial Court acquitted the respondent herein of the charge under Section 135 (1A) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short, ‘Electricity Act’). 2. Brief facts as projected by the appellant/complainant are that it filed a complaint under Section 135 (1) of the Electricity Act before the Special Court, Janjgir-Champa alleging that the respondent, who is a resident of Dewangan Mohalla, Baloda has obtained electricity connection and on 11.03.2015 a routine check up was done by the Executive Engineer Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2025.11.06 16:54:15 +0530 2 R.K.Acharya (P.W.2) and Vinod Kumar Mahilange at the premises of the respondent and on such routine check up, the respondent was found to have used the electricity by hooking the L.T. Line for domestic purpose unauthorisedly and thereby using the load of 1032 watt. A raid was conducted and on inspection, it was found that the accused used the electricity by by-passing. After preparing spot inspection report, Panchnama, seizure memo, spot map and obtaining the signatures of the Ramnath on them, the appellant/company had issued a demand notice by way of electricity bill levying the penalty after assessing the loss made by the accused/respondent and that demand notice was never objected by him and ultimately complaint case has been filed against him. 3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused/respondent before the Special judge under the Electricity Act, Dist. Janjgir-Champa. The respondent abjured the guilt and claimed trial. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses and exhibited 7 documents in support of case of the prosecution. Statement of accused/respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. In his defence, the respondent examined none nor exhibited any such documents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/company submits that the trial Court is unjustified in acquitting the accused/respondent herein of the said charge by recording perverse findings. He further submits that as per Section 135 of the Electricity Act, the Officer was authorised to raid any premises and make inspection report based on the suspicion that the electricity was used unauthorisedly by the person concerned and 3 during such raid, it was found that the respondent was using the electricity unauthorisedly by direct hooking and thereby causing loss to the company. He also submits that there is cogent and clinching evidence available on record, more particularly, the evidence of P.W.2 R.K.Acharya and P.W.3 Vinod Kumar Mahilange, which is sufficient to connect the accused/respondent with the offence alleged against him. He also submits that despite that, the learned trial Court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused/respondent without appreciating the evidence on record in its true perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 6. None for the respondent despite notice being served. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal in judgment at para 25, which reads as under:- 25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 9. As regards involvement of the respondent in the crime in question, R.K.Acharya, Executive Engineer, CSPDCL, in his examination-in-chief 4 has stated that on 11.03.2015, he along with Ramji Pandit and Vinod (P.W.3) had gone to the Dewangan Mohalla, village Baloda and they reached to the premises of the respondent and found that the respondent/accused was using the electricity unauthorisedly by direct hooking the L.T. line and considering it necessary to investigate , he formed an investigation team on the spot and prepared report vide Ex.P.3, which bears his signature. He further deposed that he visited the premises with that team and called on Ramnath, brother of the accused, to whom, he had given information with respect to illegal connection vide Ex.P.4. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7 do not bear the signature of the accused/respondent. He further admitted that he had not filed any such document which proves that the premises is owned by the accused/respondent. P.W.3 Vinod Kumar Mahilange, who was accompanying P.W.2 R.K.Acharya and his team, has stated that on reaching the premises, he saw that the electricity was being used by hooking the L.T. line directly in the campus of respondent. He admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of inspection the respondent/accused was not present at the inspected premises and further admitted that no independent witnesses were examined. A.W.1 H.S.Shukla, Assistant Engineer admitted in his cross-examination that the he has not inspected the premises in person and complaint has been filed on the basis of documents. 10. A bare perusal of the evidence of above witnesses, it is evident that the appellant/company has not filed any document with regard to previous electricity connection established in the name of the respondent/accused and further at the time of inspection, the 5 respondent/accused was not present. Moreover, P.W.2 R.K.Acharya has failed to prove that the spot, which was inspected by the investigating team, was actually owned by the respondent/accused. In Ex.P.2, temporary penalty, does not bear the signature of the accused but bears the signature of one Ramnath. Furthermore, during inspection, vide Ex.P.6 the team seized the 4 feet lengthy wire, through which, the respondent was alleged to have used the electricity by direct hooking the L.T. line, but it is not clarified by the complainant company that how the respondent/accused took the connection from service wire for using the electricity for his domestic purposes by using such short length of wire, that too, from such height. 11. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the respondent/accused has been using the electricity unauthorizedly by hooking the L.T. line against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt, as such, acquitted the accused/respondent of the said charge levelled against him. 12. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused/respondent herein of the charge under Section 135 (!A) is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 13. Accordingly, this acquittal appeal by the appellant/CSPDCL against the acquittal of the accused/respondent is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Anjani JUDGE