1 2026:CGHC:4723 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 348 of 2019  Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through- Executive Engineer (East), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Bhilai, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Pramod Mehta S/o Babu Bhai Mehta Aged About 60 Years R/o House No. 43/20 Padmanabhpur, Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ankit Mehta S/o Kushal Das Mehta Aged About 35 Years R/o Mig 475 Padmanabhpur, Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Jamul, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Nishant Bhanushali, Advocate For State : Mr. Manish Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 28.01.2026 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of acquittal dated 28.03.2018 passed by Special Judge under Electricity Act, Durg (CG) in Special Case No. 23/2008 wherein the said Court acquitted the respondents/accused of the charge under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 04.09.2006 the vigilance team of the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd, Industrial Area, Bhilai conducted raid in the premises of the respondents i.e. M/s. BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2026.02.02 17:20:08 +0530 2 Kankai Steel Pvt. Ltd. where the Service No. 1001077 was running on raid. It was found that seal of the meter was tampered which amounts to theft of electricity. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on 18.10.2016 summons were issued to witnesses namely Ramswarup Sinha, Ashok Singh, K.G. Narnavre, P.S. Kumar, D.R. Gupta, R.V. Singh, M.K. Chaturvedi, S.L. Kashyap for examining them on 07.11.2016, 08.11.2016 and 09.11.2016. On 07.11.2016 the summons issued to Ashok Singh returned with endorsement not served and summon issue to Ramswarup and K.G. Narnavre was not received back, as such, there is no information on record whether summons have been served upon them or not. Therefore, again summons were issued for appearance of witnesses from 06.12.2016 to 08.12.2016 for three days but on that date also summons were not served upon the witnesses. Thereafter the matter was taken up on 05.01.2017, 06.01.2017 and 07.01.2017 as per trial programme, but the summons were not served and again summons were issued for evidence on 30.01.2017 and 31.01.2017. The trial was taken up on 31.01.2017, on that day witness D.R. Gupta was examined and other witnesses have not been examined. For other witness S.L. Kashyap a bailable warrant was issued, and despite service of summons, he has not appeared in the witness box and the matter was fixed for 16/17.02.2017 for further evidence. 4. On 16.02.2017 witnesses Ramswarup Sinha and P.S. Jog were examined. On 17.02.2017, witness Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi, R.B. Singh were examined, but the important witness Ashok Singh and Ram Sumer Nishad were not present, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 16.03.2017 and 17.03.2017. On that day also the witness could not 3 be examined, therefore, the matter was taken up on 25.04.2017, on that day the counsel for the State prayed for adjournment which was allowed and the matter was taken up on 26.04.2017, on that day the witness S.L. Kashyap was examined and the trial was adjourned to 23.05.2017. On 23.05.2017, adjournment was sought by the prosecution on the count that the CD which was prepared is not placed on record with the charge-sheet, as such, adjournment was granted being availability of CD in trial is necessary in nature. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for application to take CD on record which is continued up to 03.08.2017 and the trial Court has rejected the same application by observing that CD is not relevant for adjudication of the trial. The matter was adjourned to 28.10.2017 for examination of the witness Mr. M.K. Chaturvedi who was already examined before the trial Court on 17.02.2017 and thereafter, on 05.01.2018, the prosecution has closed their evidence. 5. The order sheet of the trial Court would further reflect that the witnesses Kailash Narnarve (PW-8) and Ramswarup Sinha (PW-4) were remained incomplete therefore, an application under Section 311 of was filed which was allowed on 15.02.2018 and they were allowed to further examine. The accused was examined on 22.02.2018 and also moved an application under Section 315 of CrPC which was allowed and documents were exhibited on 15.03.2018. Thereafter, the matter was finally heard on 19.03.2018. Thus, he would submit that learned trial Court has in mechanical and arbitrary manner closed the right of complainant to lead evidence which is denial of opportunity and would pray on this count alone that the order may be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 4 7. The order sheet of the record would demonstrate that prosecution itself on 05.01.2018 has decided not to lead further evidence, therefore, submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that no opportunity has been given, is mis-conceived and deserves to be rejected. 8. Though it is alleged that the meter was tampered but neither device which has tampered the meter was seized in the present case nor the meter of the said company was seized. The prosecution has also not proved the spot Inspection Report as evident from the record of the trial Court. The prosecution has not submitted any device which has been installed for calculating the consumption of the electricity. This clearly proved that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. 9. On overall assessment of the evidence, the trial Court opined that tampering the seal of the meter and use of unauthorized electricity on the part of the respondents are not established. When basic evidence of spot inspection is not established and tampering device and meter were not produced before the trial Court, the trial court opined that consumption of electricity by tampering the meter is not established. The trial Court has discussed the entire evidence elaborately and this Court has no reason to record a contrary finding. It is not a case where the respondents should be called for full consideration of the case. Therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to grant leave to appeal. 10. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. 11. It is expedient for this Court to take note of the fact that against acquittal the State has preferred a Cr.M.P. wherein leave to file appeal 5 has not been granted by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2018, as such, the order of acquittal attained finality, on this count also the present acquittal is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly, it is dismissed on this count also. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika