1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. VS.STATE OF RAJ. & ANR. SB Criminal Appeal No. 307 of 2007 under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the order dated July 11, 2006 of Special Court Electricity Crime under the Act of 2003 Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2006 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant under section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 was rejected and discharged the accused respondent nO.2 for the offence under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Date of Order : April 16, 2009 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. T.C.Sharma for Mr. S.S. Hora for the appellant. Mr. Peeyush Kumar, PP. None present for the accused respondents. BY THE COURT : AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. (in short “AVVNL ” has preferred this appeal against the order dated July 11, 2006 of Special Court Electricity Crime under the Act of 2003 Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2006 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant under section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 was rejected and discharged the accused respondent No.2 for the offence under section 135 of the 2 Electricity Act, 2003. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant complainant filed a complaint under section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 against the accused respondents before the Judicial Magistrate Nasirabad stating therein that on August 3, 2004 the complainant Assistant Engineer (Vigilance) Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Nasirabad alongwith team had inspected the premises of accused respondent No.2 and during the inspection had found that the accused respondent No.2 was illegally consuming the electricity by taking direct joint connection of wire of two motor winding from electric cable on pole. The electricity theft was thus committed by accused respondent No.2. The photographs of the premises were also taken and Vigilance report was prepared of the site. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under section 135 of the 3 Electricity Act of 2003 against the accused respondent No.2 thereafter the matter was committed to the Special Court, Ajmer. The accused respondent denied to accept the charge and sought the trial. The prosecution examined six witnesses and exhibited 10 relevant documents. The trial court after hearing both the parties rejected the complaint and discharged the accused respondent for the offence under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 vide judgment dated July 11, 2006. Hence the JVVNL preferred leave to appeal which was granted by this court and hence this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court has without giving any cogent reason and without any reliance upon the prosecution witnesses and without looking into the provisions of Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, rejected the complaint and discharged the accused respondent. The prosecution witnesse s stated that accused respondent No.2 Aslam 4 illegally consumed the electricity by taking direct joint connection of wires of two motor winding from electric cable on pole and other two phase single wire which was beneath the earth was unauthorised directly joined with Kima grinding motor of 1500 Watt, five bulbs ( in house) a gap of 30-35 feet from Kima grinding machine five bulbs one fridge, one television, two tube lights and three fans were running in the house. It is clear from this statement that the electricity was illegally used by the accused respondent No.2. The trial court has not considered the testimony of PW.1 Satya Narayan Sharma which remained unimpeached on all material particulars during cross examination. It was stated in specific term that the accused respondent was found to be indulged in using the electric connection unauthorisedly and vigilance checking report was duly prepared as per the procedure even then the Special Court has 5 not placed its reliance without giving any finding in this respect and had rejected the complaint filed by the appellant. 4. Inspite of notice to the other side, nobody appeared on behalf of the accused respondent. I have gone through the entire record and the judgment passed by the court below. In my view the judgment is perfectly according to law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. The trial court by a detailed judgment discharged the accused respondents in absence of proper evidence. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned trial court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umrao Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol.10 Page 136 in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that “it is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.” 5. For these reasons, the appeal filed by the AVVNL, being devoid of merit stands 6 dismissed. The judgment of the trial court is maintained. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/