Dismissed

Assistant Engineer, C.S.E.B. v. Sunai Bai Dadsena

Chhattisgarh HC2 Dec 2014ACQA/22/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an acquittal appeal by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board. Upholding the Special Judge's order, the Court held the prosecution failed to prove illegal electricity usage or land ownership beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in witness evidence and lack of mandatory procedural compliance.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal appeal dismissed; acquittal of the Respondent affirmed.

Assistant Engineer, C.S.E.B. Vs Sunai Bai Dadsena — Chhattisgarh HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

^^'K':

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.y "& 1^-f APPELLANT/ Assistant Engineer, COMPLAINANT Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Kodatarai, Tehsil & District Raigarh (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENT/ Smt.Sunai Bai Dadsena, aged ACCUSED PERSON about 48 W/o. Shri years, Yashwant Dadsena, resident of Village Pusala, P.S. Pusour, Tehsil & District Raigarh (C.G.). APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SETION 378f4^ OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973.

¶4

¶5

.»-•"'.^ .-^ 'J< ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPtIS

¶6

ACQUITTAL APPEAL N0. 22 OF 20 10

¶7

APPELLANT (Coinplainantj

¶8

Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarl-i Stete' Electricity Bparcl

VERSUS

"^-

RESPONDENT (Accused)

Smt. Sunai Bai Dadsena

¶13

POST FOR PRONQUMaEKl^-U' <.UB)©EMENTON _ j>2_-12r2Q14

¶14

Sd/-
p.Sam Koshy
>'•) s^Kify • :i'-^'U^'.";-^.-'.f'A.'=^^''~f^' '.%»u^ Judge
•swssyss
fiSSSStSSSSf^

¶15

¶16

:'-<-.di.

¶17

VSMSIVtSSIMSf. hlSSBBB

¶18

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶19

ACQU!TTAL APPEAL N0. 22 OF 2010

¶20

APPELLANT

¶21

(Complainant)

¶22

Assistant Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricjty Board

VERSUS

RESPONDENT

Smt. Sunai Bai Dadsena

¶27

(Accused)

¶28

Present:

¶29

Mr. M.D. Sharma, Ad]sacg|ejy(|B|he^L@]yllant. Mr. Awadh TriBaLf-SSAiSi^lS B8

¶30

e Bench : Hon'ble Mr. P. Sanis

¶31

,-J.)

¶32

(1) The present Acqutj)^{;5^3l|||^l has been preferred by the Appellant against the judgi^ejiiJ.|ljacquittal dated 4.4.2008 passed by the Special Judge (i^^^lNfiSgtric^ty'Act,: 2003), Raigarh, in Special Case No.I40/,gpO'%|j^gTerejtjiy .fhe Respondent has been acquitted of the charge t8BWSKa88efion 135 of the Electricity Act,

¶33

(2) Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the instant Acquittal Appeal as per the prosecution are that on 4.8.2007 at around 2.30 pm, the Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Board and its staff had inspected the agriculture field of the Respondent situated at village Pulsada. On inspection, it was found that the Respondent had taken an electric connection illegally by directly hooking PVC wire of 10mm from the Low Tension' Line of the Electricity Board and thereby she was using a 5HP submersible pump for irrigation purpose in her field. It is said that at the time of inspection, son of the Respondent, namely, Puspendra Kumar, was present there and therefore the Panchnama (Ex.P-1) is said to have prepared in presence of the said Puspendra Kumar. Thereafter, lOmtr wire was

•/.A^ .-..'-•^.».:

-7.-

vsk.

seized by the inspecting team and three wires of 40mtr each werei; given to the said Puspendra Kumar on supurdnama. It was held: that the Respondent had put the Electricity Board to a totalloss of Rs.9258/- (Rs.8958/- towards damages + Rs.300/- towards compensation). Thereafter, a complaint case (registered ,asi 'Special Case No.140/2007') was filed before the Special Judge^ (under Electricity Act, 2003) against the Respondent for having committed the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act,: 2003, and the matter was put to trial.

¶38

(3) During the course of trial, three witnesses i.e. PW-1 R. Dayasi, Assjstgfc1(;giaili;(|P^,|»Spijkila] and PW-3 T.C. Sahu, Jy.r-^,r "^ilgWieer were exaniine?:P"®J?'t|<||grosecution in suppji(Jy:y!ts case. Statement of the accused lg^^!Q|ndent was re^iS®?.under Sectioq.rfsy^aeKfi^T'EC in which stie4!^wii|ed the cirgBinstances appearfa3:g.^^g[gj,t.hlji.tf in the prosecutTon case, pleaded innocence and ffl^|jyy||lgBgtion. . i :

¶39

-t-

¶40

(4) After coinpletion of'|fhg',J1ffigl, the Court below, i.e., the Special ;Court constitut^^^||8^8athe Electricity Act, vide: its judgment of acquittal <ijatefil^.iy$J,9?{$ reached to the conclusipn that the prosecution has_W@3eeTl^able to prove its case beyorad •do4*iq uracT reasonable doubt against the Respondent and, therefore, giviiag the benefit of doubt t.he Respondent was acquitted of the charge leveled against him. under' Section 135 of the Electricity Act, ' 2003. . ..'•'• ;:•;

¶41

(5) It is this judgment of acquittal dated 4.4.2008 against which the' in-stant Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the' ' Appellant/Eiectricity Board. .' . •

¶42

(6) Learned Counsel for the Appellant, Shri M.D. Sharma, submitted that in fact .the Court below has too technically;rio't accepting the case'of the prosecution acquitted the Respondenf. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that it w,as the duty of the Respondent to prove the case of the disputed premises not being hers own or at least the Respondent coyld

¶43

•?'%ig%^-...%^^1 ARaiiSsg "-^•••y'£v'Wsi:^:^ WfSSQSA

¶44

-J-

¶45

•1--

¶46

have put some questions to the prosecution witnesses im r^spfiGii of the ownership and title of the premises being that of^;:ffle Respondent. Learned Counsel also submits that the Court belpw; has.not properly appreciated the oral and documentary eviclenee adduced by the prosecution and has discarded the admiasitile evidence and, in the course, the Court below has deeided the matter contrary to law. It 'was also contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the third proviso to Section 135 of Electricity Act, 2003 clearly gives a benefit of presumption to be made and the Court below has totally ignored the said third proviso to SectiorL.l.i^pB|l'^aEB^:ti^gt|sAct, 2003 that unless the contrary A».*>'^pi^^jie'8'"i"t""'-has' ' f615''at3B'|syes|apiled that the accuseA/^^ondent was dishonestly using tHs'"| (d&;!sricitv of the A]3]3^^1-t/Electricity Bog.rd^.SS^rrL.^d Counsel for tff^^gpellant fii^Ber in response ti^..l:^i/^ )||^y|^given by the Corf't below subraitted that so far jf^g^B;g:s(gi|plicability of the provi&ipns relating to search and seig(y|3M^yi~ the CrPC is concerned, subsection; 4 of Section 135 ^l^All'^Bpulates that the provisions^.qf , / ^<^"^i^^^-<rf^-^"?Ts5^4^^ CrPC pertaining to seai^faj^Qi^efSus'e should be made appliealple which by ifself c[egj~Vy M^tyEs&yy proviswn is not mandator;? but could have been oiil}^®%tfe^^licable,i.e., in the given facts and circumstance.s. ofthe case, non-compliance of the provis.jo.ns of search and seizure under CrPC would not vitiate .th'e proceedings drawn underthe Electricity Act, 2003. So far as nbiiavailability of independent witnesses to prove the case ofthe prosecution is concerned, " learned Counsel for the AppeUant submits that only because. the independent witness has not supported..th'e'case of the prosecution by itself would not^ vitiate the prosecution case .ifthe other prosecution witnesses have heen1 able'to prove its case by leading proper evidence before the Court below and that from their evidence if the Respondent has |not been able to bring out any substance to: the extent of creating ;a doubt in the mind of the' Court bringing out such facts'so as.to disbelie've the entire version of the prosecution witnesses. For tHe

¶47

''••sw:

¶48

-4-

¶49

said reasons, learned Counsel fbr the Appellant submits:l;hat;lt:Be instant Acquittal Appeal deserves to be allowed and by-'gefizing aside the order passed by the Court below, the Responden©|1:>e convicted fbr the offence under Section 135 of the ElectriG:ityl%et, 2003. . 'IJ-llli -'!

¶50

In support of his contentions, learned Counsel'for the Appellant has relied upon the judgements reported in 2001 Cr.L.J. 504; 2009 Cr.L.J. 4100; 2008 Cr.L.J. 4034; 2013 Cr.L.J. (NOC)^441;2006 (2)^{Cr.L.J.1121;AIR2002SC1621and2006} i : : (10) SCC617.

¶51

(7) Per cont|p|tlg;^ti|/5^,Bl|'B"i]^S|f,|,%<med Counsel fbr the Respond.aB"Ef.o^3l?sing the submissions p'ul- faylJSAy the leai-ned Couia^J^yrthe Appellant, has vehemently arglV8|8|p'cit a:plain pgl^^ of the finding a^^^®l;^^theCourt below-l(S?^woul,d reveal that the entire p3 Sase is done in a half hearted manner and no efforts^iiBBS8S F'made by the prosecutio:ni:[tQ prove the case beyond all'ji^'aBgi] le doubf. Learned Counsel.fQr the Respondent also subjliIEI^ even if vve peruse the recQr'ds to assess the manner i(n |wti||jvftlsiej|iji/estigation was conductedit would reflect that the ]5'r®s%SffITO has not made any serious efforts for proving the charge'<-t7^*lq levelled^.il^ , against. the_ _Respondentlin. :: a manner as is required under the p.rovisions of law.'Learned Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that there was !no signature of the Respqndent in the alleged Panchnama [Ex.P^l] prepared^{underForm-IVofthe.ChhattisgarhState} ElectriGity Rules, 2006; that : there are material contradictions ih'"the .statement 'of the pr&secution witnesses regarding the seizure';6f wires; that PW-2 .Shoukilal has not supported the case . of, ffie prosecution in any m'anher and has' turned hostile; and that ownership of the Respondent has not been proved :by tHe prosecution. It was also'contended by the learned Counsel|fpr the Respondent that if we peruse the evidences which have:cd;me.pri record it would show that there are a lot of discrepancies, contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecufjo'n

¶52

'^..^ii%w'/--•^.^: .;•"%: S»,"'.S

¶53

-3-

¶54

witnesses and, therefore, the benefit of doubt should be giveniab] the Respondent. It is also submitted by the counsel for, ffle Respondent that the scope of interfering in an Acquittal Appeal.'is very limited and that it has to be proved on behalf o:f the complainant beyond all reasonable doubts in respect of commission ofthe offence by the accused and that even ifthere is a slightest of doubt in respect of the case having been proved or not, the benefit would always go in favour of the accused. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, therefore, prayed that'the instant Appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be rejected. / :

¶55

(8) Considering|!>|i^|g. ^•||^'T|i®n^y^ysj|fgrth by the learned "Tor Counsels^ ^|p^.lBg either side"''"S-E|tyoir|sperusalof ;the riiateEtlSg'^'tailable on record, if we see the finSyj.f^tlywed at by tha,^5(;fi-t below, the Cg.i.astj;;B$Eq%iyiasfter taking into '5|^yQeration th9s!6vidences that haf^s!t^^gjggg4&i behalf of the prtfsecutipn, held that the prosecut^fs^SSQSSkd^WS?^&^iS^~ to• provei •its case • bevond'^, -'l reasonable doubt and tha'1'gH^f;S:S|e many lacunas on the part'of fhe prosecution in i,£ase. SSX^.'SS&^

¶56

¶57

If we see the evff&^ifef^f^sff^J-^ R. Dc^asi, Assistant Engineer, he has clearly gfSSSIPE-RBS he had seized the whole three black colour wires of 4.0mtr each which were used by the Respondent in the .hooking from the LT line of the Electricit)' Board. On the contrary, PW-3 T.C. Sahu, Junior Engineer,; has stated in his evidence that there were three black colour wires'Qf 40ratr each which were- being used in the hpoking aild that';he had got cut the said 40mfr of wires and out of the said 40mtr;of wires he had.seized .only three wires of lOmtr each and the remaining wires'was'.given to the soh of the Respondent,, namely,;' Puspendra Kumar, on sup'urdnama. Thus, there are material contradictions in th&' .statements pf the prosecution witnesses regarding the seizure /of wires used in the alleged theft ,pf electricity. Froni the stafements of the said witnesses (PW-1 arad PW-3), it also reflects that no separate seizure memo was prepared in respect of the seizure made by the inspecting team

•-:"-<^.^

-6-

and the entries :in this regard had been made in the PancHinama (Ex.P-1) itself, but no copy of the said Panchnama appearsi,;te> have been given to the Respondent or her son, Puspendra'Kumarj who is said to have present at the time of inspection. Thus,^fKe seizure proceedings initiated by the Electricity Board gives ri:se:fo ': ; . a great element of doubt in the prosecution story. Similarly, the officers of the Electricity Board who' vvere examined before the Court below gave a testimony that the inspection was conducted in the presence of an independent witness PW-2 Shoukilal. However, the said witness PW-2 Shoukilal has ng^:'s^fffif^yf,ff c^gyi^Stjge prosecution in any manner a.prif^t^yWre, the case of the"]3Wgyu||Qm cannot be said to ha,v^f)'^Vi~"proved with the support-of an'in3Sfyss^ytwitne§s: '^^^^•'"? i. .i. rizss^x.' •. r ,1 • • 'J^^^IN: . . . Lj|y^jtg, as regards ths<^^€g§ih^'n.tof the ins.pectiTi^i||t|m at :, ,^ih3; , ., , A?r:$s'!vKyyiw.s.'! .. ., .^,! , ..siy ,-,'1: 8"S?espondent had ca.pS^KjEBgl^ljePSCges to the ElectrifSty Boa to the extent of Rs.' fy^fhe was not properly dpne^as ther.e was no GSSv was selzed and on the basis -of'which it could be sg%}iyfi^|jj±ie Respondent had put the Electricity Board to a Igg^'Dfj.R^iQSS^Ii-. ,

¶62

In addition, the prdseeSpSB'fBlso has failed to estabiish the fact that the field where ^?I^-vTO^fhe 'alleged theft. - of. electricity. . . was .bising. J committed in-fact belonged' to the Respondent or not. In: other'. words, the owhership ^ of the field where the alleged theft;'of electricity was being. •committed was not established or prov.ed before the Gourt below. ..Neither^.any person of the^villagewas enquired nor any 'document of Patwari/Revenue Inspectcir/, ^Tehsildar was there regardiiig .the ownership. ofthe field whe-re the inspection was conducted.. Further, if we see the erQSsexamination of PW-'l R: :Dayasi, Assistant Engineer and PW^g T.C. Sahu, Junior.,Engineer, they have admitted in their^ cro,ssexamination that at the time of inspection the son;of e Respondent, namely, Puspendra Kumar, had stated that tEie fie.ld where the inspection was being done by the inspecting team! was not of her mother, the Respondent, and that he himself had got

¶63

'.s^;?A'•^•^.^{x^ss^s-}

¶64

-~1-

¶65

installed the tube-well and was using the same in tlie. Similarly, when we peruse the statement (Ex.P-3) whicH is;said,|to have been given by the son of the Respondent,':nam:eiy; Puspendra Kumar, it does not disclose that the field where|j3ie inspection was done was in fact that of the Respondent or thaf any tube-well was installed in the said field by the Respondenfc. Thus, frorn the oral and docuraentar;? evidence adduced by the prosecution, case of the prosecution is not established or proved. (9) If we see the finding of the Court below it would reflect that there is a great element of missing links in respect of entlhy, search and sei^i^'te^:Qi^|u^feBs|by^|fifi^pi|fipers of the Electricity Board at^tS^ ^effsSes of the accused 8^jghcto|(t to which there is no-i^^(|Rtctory explanation. Thus, taking inT8|i^].^yeration a.11 t^S^lfacts and circuga-gtjti-n.cSs.-o^the case,/the'|KJ|»'J; .be.taw reaBhed to the specifioJfj:^gia]||;|}g®-'Erstlythe prosecCR-ion has miserably failed to ^g|^®^fifs®scase and secondly che' prpsecution has failed tcTf®i Lany mandatory requirements of the provisions of the J^^ffMay^ct, 2003 and, therefc>re,lgiving the',^advantage of it to/tlae..j&0<stts,edjlgespondent, the Court below vide impugned judgrneritijg^ig&t^p'the Respondent of the charge under section 135 Qfthe<KW^?rtdtt^ Act, 2003. ;

¶66

(10) On due cohsideration of the evidences available on reeord,-it is evidently clear that the prosecution has failed to give any justifiable reason'for non-compliance of the provisions of the Electricity Act which otherwise are mandatorily required. Forlthe foregoing reasons and the evidences which have come on .rec^rd., it can be safely concluded that there is no perversit^7 in .!the judgment of the Court 'below as it cannot be said i:that'i tfae judgment is not based on the evidence or the evidence on 'reGorci; has not been properly. appreciated by the Court below which 1'nay ! warrant interfererice by this Court. ,; .,

¶67

(11) In the instant case, learned Counsel for the Appellanthas relied upon the matter of State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Suhil'cfrid Another [2001 Cr.L.J. 504]. Relying upon Para^l9 of the':said

¶68

-8-

¶69

judgement, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitteci^hgi.fctiip ; requirement of calling upon independent and reliedMUpoEi witnesses to lead evidence to prove the case of the proigecutioi'i' would not be necessary, particularly, when the proceedilngs :have been drawn under the provisions ofthe Electricity Act, 20031 6yt, the same would had been required if it is a case where certa.i:a specific seizure to be done from the accused person then the presence of the independent witness would had been relevant. Similarly, learned Counsel for the Appellant ajso relied upon tHe decision rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2009 Cr.L.J. 41 OQ,-^gei, ®Si^ltte £a^ & Ors. Vs.. State^of Punjab", wtjspf^r^^^is68unser Tbr (M(JJ:j^^lla.|tt^ stressed;uppn Para-I1i,^|Ar as the search and seizure is coiSeKB'cii. ' -^:., ;

¶70

¶71

<^;

¶72

said contentioyef^tSe-'i^a'ned Counsel for be accepted ayge^gSt|ffthat a plain. peru;?S,llof,tihe provisions sub-section 5, ^UUttOOX<^^l<%fr of CrPC clearly enyisages the'fact that the provisi^rp%fij^uirement of ah independent witness is for both the i%§I^|[i{i:&|,y.e., for search as well!a.s for 'seizure. If we read fheftMtff^fSeStifii},', i.e., Section lOO.of.CrPG and.'the said sub-secti8SggMSBnS°Med therein it would ;clearly show that the iritenti9ff1^W'J1'^SIie legislators requiring !- an independent witness was to show that whatever action has been taken by the team conducting search and seizure act, in an unbiased manner and are arbitrary or have made out a false complaint only on. .papers so as to impljcate a per.sbn. The persons. of an independent and respectable inhabitant ;of the locality would. prove the fact of search as well as the findihgs Tna.de in the course.of the search. Hence, the said judgemen^s -i would also not come to the aid of the Appellant. . ',J (12) Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further relied1 upon the decision rendered by Gujrat High Court in "Gopolbh.ai1 Chandubhai Rana Vs. State of Gujarat" reported in 2008 Cr.Li;J: 4034, wherein the Counsel for the Appellant relied upon.in Para11 of the said judgement and relying upon the said juElgemSnt';

'i.-

'?"°"W5C r :/',;%;e

-9-

learned Counsel for the Appellant tried to emphasize the^faetJ^^Hat there was no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the evidence leati Iby the prosecution witnesses, particularly, the officers" of::?^the, Electricity Board and, therefore, the judgement of acqtiittal granted by the Court below deserves to be set aside. .;: / ' :;

¶77

However, in the instant case the said judgement eannot be made applicable for the reason that the finding of the Court belpw was not that the witnesses on behalf 'of the prosecution were not. reliable but the finding of the Court was that the deposition of fhe prosecution witness was disbelieved by. the Court on accounf- pf various contradi£^®M|j§:.t^.||%'J|gt}a^'apnQngstthe evidences.'of the proseci^io^ ^rftBesses and the berPBKi'^r^'\sB|ich given to the accu&ggi.^l'sbn. As such the said judgemenf ly^Qt. be made ': a^BgSBle to the facts of^d3.® HSEACase.. <sf4i,. (13] Similarly, learned'.(!:tt^i|ls'8|||:^t:6lie Appellant in addition has also 'relied upon the fdM|^y%|Wgements with regard :to 'the disbelieving of the prosec'L|tj|>Xitjq;tnesses:,'^ 1

¶78

2013 Cr.L.J. Ningappa Parnianna Gurikar Vs.. State? 1 11, 2006(2) Cr.L.J. (ohan Singh Vs. State ofU.P: AIR 2002 SC 1621 ^i rSingh & Ors Vs. State of M.P. • 2006 (10) SCC 617 (Para-5) - V.N. Ratheesh Vs. Stat&]o!f Kerala. , : , !,

¶79

These judgenients have been cited by the learned CQuns:eI for the Appellant ' to' show the powers of the High-Court fo interfere in a judgemen't of acquittal 'in the evenf if th.e finding arrived at by the Court below is perverse, contrary to evidence, However, if'we peruse the finding of the Court below it would clearly show that the Court below in fact has considered :the evidences which have come before the Court below very minutely and has reached to.a conclusion on the basis of the assessment made. Thus, it cannot be said that the findings are baseless or are contrar}' to the evidence on record. As such, the judgements cited by the Counsel for the Appellant would not be :of any assistance to the Appellant in the facts of the present case. • ^

¶80

^l^'<sS(°:'-:

¶81

-)0-

¶82

(14) It is settled position of law that in an appeal agaiictsfian order of acquittal only in exceptional cases where ^tMere'iajife compelling circumstances and the judgment under :app;eal;i:{i!s found to be perverse can the Appellate Court interfere witB.itfie order of acquittal. Recently, Hon'ble the Supreme Court.in the case ofPhula Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2014 SC 1256, in Para-10, has in very categorical term held that:^"The appellate Court should bear in mind the presumption ofinnocence of the accused and further that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption ofhis innocence. Interference in a routine mamier where the other LI^,U,|S|^ jgp^ggjjs sSlSV.Ae avoided, unless there are goodreyp!^s'^<iyM^fference?' °s*?iy,|y <n» . :;'^ ~ ~ ^^ ^ .•fi&cVWere ~~is ""'""'L^.""'1""an order of acauittal in alleged .•%!xy"" aG^^yf person, the sg.nT^'ySgSiyA^not be ^tekli \ . . /'^ff'i/sSMSySligBBy unless there is{3i|3-^WEn,g|, yy-e strong case sufficient and substanfl,|||gy^|tir{||(i favour of the prosecution brought before the Coftiri and which has not'.been w AU.I i( 'considered or has been q^g|^iIi(KSAby the Court below, only.it^en ^ can.the order\of acqziitjS.lPh.|j^||gtfS^feqjt|g of interference. , :;';, 1'1

¶83

The law in this res.SWS'Wiaw well settled in a'series'o? judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the! Supreme Court has in very categorical ter.ms held that whenever, there':;,is an order of acquittal, the higher Courts not to upset the holdi'ng without there being very convincing reasons and comprehensiy.e considerations. : '•.'::. That while reappreciating and reconsidering the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is based, certain otMer principles pertaining to other facets are to be borne in mind. i,:,•i An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind thaf.m case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour1 of the accused. Firstly, the presumption ofinnocence is available to:hirri under the fundamental principle of crimina] jurisprudence tHat' every person shall be presuined to be innocent unless;he ^is

¶84

--•:..&..%

¶85

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

¶86

proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, thGaebusea having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innQeenGe:IT:s further reinfbrced, reaffirmed and strengthened by !:the Itrial Court. ; : \ :•' !

¶87

If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the' basis. of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court. The High Court is also required to see that unless there are substantial and compelling circumsta.nces, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. ;

¶88

It is tritggiJ'l^g^lsfet^^gja lBwjU|ials|ons in this regard, b}' the Hon'Ue'iSu1rBme Court: ~"°llf ,fsS^ • , (4) SCC 415- C]»»dj-appav. State ofK;€j ka. |gDl2 (1) SCC 60%'y$ti|(&a^|nasthan v. Shera 2013 (5) SCC 70S^J>S»m^Qsxiappav. State of Kt!mataka, AIR 2009 SC 1542tiy]| t|S|,^State of Punjab v. Sukbchajn1 Singh & Anr.

¶89

• 2012 (6) SCC 589 11 Rohtash v. State of Haryana.

¶90

(16)^{Thus,thisCourt} -fsT?f.^{is2^|{|j|jira|gapsidered} ,-f''"-'i:',\ •'^"'""T'i-^{v'iewthattheFinding1} •arrived at bythe .CouTt|]]:!iglc|^ils,3Juijrely in accordance with law and the Court below Ka?Er-^tS¥';irA;)mmitted any en-or of law in reaching to the said conclusion of acquitting the Respondent of the charge leveled against him under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

¶91

(17) The Appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed being totally devoid ofmerits.

Sd/p.Sam Koshy

/sky/.

'•^:

BIte.&^^ a*i-s"-""-; •:%:.. ^;

Assistant Engineer, C.S.E.B. v. Sunai Bai Dadsena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Assistant Engineer, C.S.E.B. v. Sunai Bai Dadsena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kumar and Another Vs Narayan Prasad and Others

Jaihind Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Inthe Matter of M/S Pressed Steel Tank Vs M/S Eastern Electro Chemical Indu.

Bata India Ltd. Vs Manohar Singhdeadth.Lr'S Balbir andORS

M/s a.s.advertisers Vs Municipal Corporation, Raipur And Anr.

Shersinghdeadlrs Smt.Dhela BAIandANR Vs Smt. Ramdulari and Ors.