1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. VS.SMT. REMA DEVI & ANR. SB Criminal Appeal No. 409 of 2007 under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the order dated July 28, 2006 of Special Court Electricity Crime under the Act of 2003 Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2006 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant under section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 was rejected and discharged the accused respondents 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. Virendra Lodh with Mr. Vinod Goyal for the appellant. 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 28, 2006 of Special Court Electricity Crime under the Act of 2003 Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2006 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant under section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 was rejected and discharged the accused respondents for the offence under section 135 of 2 the 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 No.1 Ajmer stating therein that in AVVNL Ajmer on May 2, 2003 the accused respondents were found in using the electricity supply un-unauthorisedly and dishonestly which was punishable under the provisions of section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. 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 Electricity Act of 2003 against the accused respondent thereafter the matter was committed to the Special Court, Ajmer. The accused respondents denied to accept the charge and sought the trial. The prosecution examined four witnesses and 3 exhibited relevant documents. The trial court after hearing both the parties rejected the complaint and discharged the accused respondents for the offence under section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 vide judgment dated July 28, 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 respondents. The prosecution witnesses in the specific term stated in their statements that the accused respondents were found to be indulged in using the electric connection unauthorisedly and vilgilence checking report was duly prepared as per the procedure even then the Special Court has not placed its 4 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 respondents. 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 5 dismissed. The judgment of the trial court is maintained. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/