Durg, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Baldev Singh S/o Preetam Singh Aged About 81 Years R/o Malwa Market
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31420 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 142 of 2019 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd Through O- I- C Mr. O. P. Bhardwaj , Executive Engineer (O And M), C S P D C L, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Baldev Singh S/o Preetam Singh Aged About 81 Years R/o Malwa Market, G. E. Road, Police Station- Mohan Nagar, Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board 08/07/2025 1. This appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.09.2018 passed by Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003), Durg 2 in Special Criminal Case No. 1195/13 by which the respondent has been acquitted from the offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003. 2. A complaint was filed by the complainant by which the respondent herein was charged for an offence under Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. He was examined under Section 313/ 281 of Cr.P.C. who denied the allegation and claimed innocence. On due appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial court acquitted the respondent by the impugned judgment which led to filing of this appeal. 3. Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the learned trial court is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence, erroneous and bad in law. He submits that learned trial court has held that there was some procedural irregularity but it is not fatal to be case of the appellant. By the cogent
Decision
and prudent evidence the case may be disposed of on reasonable ground and the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside and the respondent be convicted under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 by imposing appropriate punishment. 4. Opposing this submission, Shri Vidya Bhushan Soni supports the impugned judgment and submits that the entire procedure carried out by the appellant in the premises of the respondent is contrary to the procedure laid down in this regard and the seizure of the meter appears to be doubtful and therefore learned trial court on appreciation of evidences given a meritorious finding of acquittal in favour of the respondents. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 3 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 6. Law with regard to powers of the appellate court in cases against the acquittal is no longer that the appellate court has full power to arrive to re-appreciate the evidence has arrived to its own conclusion subject to the fact that the findings recorded by the trial court is absolutely perverse or contrary to the evidence. When the two views are possible, one favoring the accused should be adhered to. In this context, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 10 SCC 461, requires to be noticed in which it has been observed that the Appellate Court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial court though entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion it should not do so as a matter of routine. It has been further held in paragraph 9 as under - “9. Before concluding, we would like to point out that this Court in number of cases has held that an Appellate Court entertaining an appeal from the judgment of acquittal by the trial court though entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion it should not do so as a matter of routine. In other words, if from the same set of evidence two views are possible and if the trial court has taken one view on the said evidence, unless the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court is either perverse or such that no reasonable person could come to that conclusion or that such a finding of the trial court is not based on any material on record, it should not merely because another conclusion is possible reverse the finding of the trial court. [See : M/s. Mohanlal Hargovind Dass vs. Ram Narain & Ors. (1979 (3) SCC 279), State of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh alias Chhajju (1978 (3) SCC 129), State of Maharashtra vs. Wasudeo Ramchandra 4 Kaidalwar (1981 (3) SCC 199) and Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1975 (3) SCC 815)]. In the instant case also we find that the trial court had taken a view which the High Court has not held to be either perverse, unreasonable or a finding which is not based on evidence, still on re- appreciation of the evidence, the High Court came to a different conclusion which on facts of this case and on the basis of the ratio of the law laid down by this Court in the above cited cases cannot be sustained.” 7. In case M.C Ali And Another v. State Of Kerala (2010) 4 SCC 573 it has been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record,the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal and place reliance on the judgment in case of Chandrappa and ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, in which it has been held in para 42 as under: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate 5 Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 8. In light of the above precedent, the facts and circumstances of the case needs to be examined. 9. Learned trial court on analysis of the evidence gave finding in paragraph 20 as under: “20.Thus, it is clear that the action taken by the Electricity Department in this case is doubtful. Mandatory provisions given in the Act have not been followed, seizure has not been done duly, no action has been taken nor any statement has been made before any independent witnesses, the meter has been tested in the lab in the absence of the accused, no document has been attached to give information regarding presence at the time of testing, there is a significant contradiction in the statements of the witnesses regarding the meter being sealed, the meter is not sealed at the time of the proceedings and the lab of the meter is not sealed. When the investigation is conducted in the absence of the consumer almost one and a half months after the seizure proceedings, the entire process mentioned above gets corrupted and becomes doubtful. The prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, but the 6 circumstances of this case raise doubts about the case, which benefits the accused.” 10.On perusal of record available on record, it does not appear that the findings recorded by the learned trial court is without proper appreciation of evidence on record whether it has meticulously examined the evidence available on record and gave a finding of acquittal in favour of the accused. The findings so recorded does not appears to be perverse which requires any interference in this acquittal appeal filed by the appellants. 11.Hence, the present acquittal appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Madhurima