HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, AT BILASPUR k Cr MP. $O$ x2009 [3.13.) (Apipliciation For Leave To Appeal U/ S 378 [4] Cr. P. C. 1973) A231icait§ l Assistant Engineer , Chattisgarh State Electricity Board,. Now Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. I , i Comnlainan‘t ‘ _ _ Kusmura Distt Raigarh 1 C.G.) ‘ VERsus Shri Kaushal Patel aged about 38 yrs S\o Shri Tirath 2 3 x Ram Patel , Occupation Cultivator R \o Village Aj miaal 57g 11 cation For Leave To A eal U S 3'78 4 Code Of Cri Responéent\ Accusei “3‘ 3 $ Salhepali ; Tahasi1& Distt. Raigaxh ( cc.) ‘- ff ¢ P'oce‘dure i 1973 : V V gainst Jugment Of Acguittal / No ‘r A _ r . . .,._ ;«..._“ J @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT BILASFUR SB : HON’ELE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER i («it Shn‘ Yashwant Tiwan‘, counsel for the pctih’oner. 3 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL U! S 378(4) GREG. ORDER (16.02.2010; Heard on admission. A The present petition $ed umier Section 378(4) of mei£‘¥?:“._ Cr.P.C. is dixected against the impugned order and l judgment dated 24.2.2009 passed by the Special judge under the Electricity Act, Raigarh in Special Case No. 83] 2007 whereby acquitting the respondent for the o§ence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. e 2. Brief facts of the case axe that on 27.4.2007, uyon receiving information, the o$cers of the Electricity Boald have inspected the neld of accused/respondent and have found that the accused] respondent was running the electric pump of 5 horsepower by talg'ng direct connection {tom the pole. According to the Electricity department, by this act accused has caused financial loss of Rs. 5,175 to the department. After investigation a complaint was nled and the accused/respondent was prosecuted for the odence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act. \ 3. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined : as many as four witnesses. Statement of the accused] respondent was also recorded under Section 313 a :j u nanny t (L‘s an . »2 CR.M.P.NO. 203(2004 APPLICANT Assistant Engineer ‘versus NON-APPLICAIVT Shri Kaushal Patei Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelmi against hi and pleaded imlocence and false implication in the case. i 4. Contenu‘on of the counsel for the petiiioner is that. on the basis of material availabie on record, the Court below ought .to have convicted I the accused/ i‘espondent. He submits that the Com below has erred in law in‘acquitting I the accused] respondent solely on the statement of P.W,-3 ‘ i Bahadur Patel. He also submits that the statement of departmental Witnesses have been completely ignored by the e. a: Court below While acquitting the accused/respondent and solely on the ‘basis of the department witness the accused] respondent ought to have been convicted. é 6. I have heard ShrfLTiwan', counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 7. Shn' Tiwan' fairly admits that at the time of the aileg inspection of the held neither the accused was present nor ‘ any one else h‘om his side was present. This fact hasalso been admitted by P.W.-1 Punit Ram, the lineman who has categorically stated that at the time of inspection the accused/respondent was not present It also appears from the record that the entire case of the petitioner hinges upon the statement of Bahadur Patel. the independent Witness. However this witness has stated that his held is adjacent to the held of the accused and there was a land dispute between him and the accused. He has further stated that he ' had nled a suit against the accused however the same'was diSmissed and he is not. in talking terms with the accused] respondent. He has further stated that at the time of inspection the accused] respondent was not present. He ‘ further admits that in respect of electricity theft the case has been registered against him also and} the 'same is - pending. He submits that his signatures have been obtained in the document by saying that the signatures are required in his own case. Even P.W.—1 has categorically admitted that \ ‘ ‘v; m é x 3$Q at the time of inspection ncither the informah’on was given i to the Patwan' nor to any other person. 8. P.W.-2 Babulal Dansena and P.W.-4 A.Varshney have i also categorically admitted that at the time of inspecu'on the , i accused was not present and it is P.W.-3 Bahadur Patel who _ i i i t 9. The entire evidence as adduced by the prosecution ,j has been duly considered by the Court below and after ‘s appreciation of the evidence the Court has arrived to a :3 paiticular conclusion of acquitu‘ng the respondent. _ 10‘ In view of the material available on reconi and not i being forgemll of the settled legal position that in a petition i against acquittal if two views axe possible on the basis o‘f the i evidence led by the prosecution and the ,txial Court taking ; one view favouted the accused, ievexsion of hndings o § acquittal by the appellate Court faking the other possible view into consideration is not permissible, this Court is of i the View that the judgment impugned acquitu'ng the g respondent/accused of the od‘ence as alleged is just and . proper and no interference therewith is wananted. The i petition fails and is accordingly dismissed at the motion - stage itself. 1 was called as witness. f /u a