Possession/ Ownership Of Property Relevant Consideration For Proceedings Against Electricity Theft: Gujarat High Court

A recent order of the Gujarat High Court upholding the acquittal of a man under Section 135 of the Electricity Act for alleged unlicensed connection has made it clear that ownership/ possession of the property in question has to be factored into consideration.Justice Ashokkumar Joshi rejected the State's appeal on several grounds, including the fact that the Police did not call for any certificate or documents to show the possession or ownership of accused for the so-called place of occurrence.It held that the order of the trial court has meticulously considered all the depositions of the witnesses, the State had failed to prove the case against the Respondent-Accused and the trial court's order did not warrant any interference."While exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrive at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person."A complaint was lodged by the Deputy Engineer of the South Gujarat Vij Company Ltd accusing the Respondent of theft of electricity. Allegedly, the Applicant did not have a regular connection and he had obtained illegal direct connection from low transmission line. It was alleged that an average bill of Rs. 2 lacs was prepared and issued to the Accused which was not paid by him and accordingly, the instant complaint was filed. The APP opposed trial court's order by relying on the deposition of several witnesses who were said to be 'reliable and trustworthy' and other documentary evidence. Per contra, the Respondent argued that it was not proved by the Prosecution that the ownership of the premises belonged to the Accused. Therefore, there was no need to interfere with the judgement order. Justice Joshi noted that the lineman at the respective time was cross-examined and had admitted that he had no knowledge of the number of persons who were residing at the place. The captioned wire which was confiscated was easily available in the market and did not contain any piece of marking paper. Further, there was no open wire/PVC wiring at the residential place of the Accused person. The Panch Witness also admitted that theft was not possible through the captioned wires. Another Panch Witness had turned hostile. The In-Charge PSO at the Police Station also admitted that he merely registered the offence and had done 'nothing' except for this. Significantly, there was also no evidence for the possession or ownership of the place of occurrence by the Accused. Thus, the bench dismissed State's appeal. Case Title: STATE OF GUJARAT Versus BALVANTSINH AMARSINH RAJCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 333Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Possession/ Ownership Of Property Relevant Consideration For Proceedings Against Electricity Theft: Gujarat High Court

PRIYANKA PREET

Tags