{"id":194193,"date":"2008-07-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008"},"modified":"2016-09-23T11:59:23","modified_gmt":"2016-09-23T06:29:23","slug":"gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Gopalbhai vs Unknown on 15 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Gopalbhai vs Unknown on 15 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Md Shah,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCR.A\/1191\/2007\t 18\/ 18\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCRIMINAL\nAPPEAL No. 1191 of 2007\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE MD SHAH\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nGOPALBHAI\nCHANDUBHAI RANA - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nC.G.Sharma with Mr.Shailesh C.Sharma for\nAppellant. \nMs. Darshna S.Pandit, APP for the State. \nMS MAYA S\nDESAI for MGVCL.\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE MD SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 15\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\tAt the
\noutset, it may be noted that this appeal is taken up for final
\nhearing today as the same was fixed for expeditious hearing by the
\nCourt (Coram: Akil Kuresh, J.) vide order dated 4-7-2008.\n<\/p>\n
1.1\tThe present appellant-Gopalbhai Chandubhai Rana and one
\nMr.Survirsinh alias Suresh Amarsinh Gohil were charge-sheeted for the
\noffence punishable under Section 135(1)(A) and (C) of he Electricity
\nAct, 2003 by the learned Special Judge, Kheda at Nadiad which is at
\nExh.5 in Special Case (GEB) no.59 of 2006. At the end of the trial,
\nby  judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 2nd
\nAugust, 2007, passed by  the learned Special Judge, Kheda at Nadiad,
\nthe present appellant-Gopalbhai Chandubhai Rana was convicted for the
\nsaid offence and was sentenced to suffer R.I. For two years and fine
\nof Rs.2,63,000\/- in default, further R.I. for six months while the
\nappellant- Survirsinh alias Suresh Amarsinh Gohil came to be
\nacquitted. It is against this judgment and order of conviction and
\nsentence that the present appellant has preferred this appeal under
\nSection 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tBrief facts of the prosecution case is as under:\n<\/p>\n
2.1\tOn 26-4-2005, PW 4 Mr. H.L. Bhalsod Junior Engineer, Maha Gujarat
\nVig.Co.Ltd.,(MGVCL), West Sub- Division, went to serve the notice as
\nper the Samadhan (compromise) scheme to recover the due amount of
\nelectricity charges on one Smt. Anandiben A. Gohil, 5, Mahisagar
\nSociety, Saibaba Complex, Opp. S.R.P. Nadiad, whose electricity
\nconnection was permanently disconnected. During his visit, present
\nappellant Gopal C. Rana  who was tenant of the said premises was
\npresent there running a shop in the name and style of Harsiddhi
\nElectric Stores. At that time, the Officer found that though electric
\nconnection of the said premises was disconnected, the service line
\nwas on and he noticed that  the present appellant- Gopal C.Rana had
\nillegally obtained electric connection directly from the pole by
\nusing his private wire. It was also found by him that he had also
\nprovided electricity from this connection to the accused no.2. By
\nthis act, theft of electricity to the tune of Rs.87,798.94ps had been
\ncommitted by the present appellant-Gopal C.Rana. The said Officer
\nthen immediately called for Helper from the Office, disconnected the
\nillegal electric connection and seized the wire which was used for
\nobtaining electric connection directly from the pole and also seized
\nthe meter. He also prepared Rojnama as well as the map on the spot
\nand obtained the signature of the present appellant- Gopal C.Rana on
\nthem. Thereafter, this Rojnama, map and Muddammal which was recovered
\nfrom the spot were sent to MGVCL, Nadiad. On the basis of this record
\non 26th April,2005 Jasubhai Ishubhai Gadhvi (PW 1),
\nIncharge Deputy Engineer, MGVCL, Nadiad West lodged complaint Exh.10
\nbefore the PSI, MGVCL Police Station Gotri Circle Office Compound,
\nVadodara. On the basis of the said complaint offence is registered
\nbing MGVCL Police Station CR no. I 231 of 2005 and after
\ninvestigation chargesheet was filed for the above referred offences
\nagainst the accused persons in the Court of the learned Chief
\nJudicial Magistrate, Nadiad. As the offence punishable under Section
\n135(1)(A) and  (C)of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 was exclusively
\ntriable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Chief Judicial
\nMagistrate, First Class, Nadiad by its order dated 15-7-2006 under
\nSection 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code, committed the case to the
\nCourt of Sessions, Kheda at Nadiad. Thereafter, the case came to be
\nregistered as Special Case (GEB) no.59 of 2006.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIn order to prove its case against the accused the prosecution has
\nexamined the following witnesses:\n<\/p>\n
\tPW1 Mr. J.I.Gadhvi, complainant at Exh.9.\n<\/p>\n
\tPW2 Mr. Vinodkumar  Sakar at Exh.13.\n<\/p>\n
\tPW3 Mr. Muktarsing Shikh at Exh.14.\n<\/p>\n
\tPW4 Mr.H.L.Bhalsod at Exh.15.\n<\/p>\n
\tPW5 Smt.Anandiben Gohil at Exh.31.\n<\/p>\n
\tPW6 Mr.A.I.Diwan at Exh.32.\n<\/p>\n
\tPW7 Mr.Ashokbhai Ramsing, PSO at Exh.33.\n<\/p>\n
\tPW 8 Mr.J.M.Makwana, I.O. at  Exh.34.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe prosecution has also produced the following documentary
\nevidence:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tOriginal F.I.R at Exh.10.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tRozkam at Exzh.16.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tSketch at Exh.17.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tNotice at Exh.18.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tAssessment Patrak at Exh.9.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tLetter written by MGVCL to the accused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tBilling report at Exh.21.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tNotice issued by MGVCL to Anandiben Gohil.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tSupplementary bill of Rs.87,798.94ps.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tRent Note between Anandiben & Gopalbhai C.Rana.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tRegistered Sale-deed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tReceipt of Rs.1500\/-deposited by Anandiben Gohil in MGVCL.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tReceipt of Rs.10,000. Deposited by Anandiben Gohil in MGVCL.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
5.\tAfter recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses further
\nstatement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure
\nCode came to be recorded by the trial Court. It is submitted by both
\nthe accused in their further statement that a false case is filed
\nagainst them and both the accused denied to examine any witness and
\nalso denied to give evidence on oath.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tAfter hearing the learned APP as well as the Advocate for the
\naccused, the learned Special Judge after taking into consideration
\nthe evidence on record convicted the accused no.1 and acquitted the
\naccused no.2 of the charges levelled against them as referred to
\nhereinabove. Hence, the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tHeard learned Advocate Mr. C.G.Sharma for the appellant,   learned
\nA.P.P. Ms. Darshna Pandit for the State of Gujarat and Ms. Mayaben
\nDesai for MGVCL  as notice was issued by this Court against MGVCL.\n<\/p>\n
7.1\tIt is pertinent to note here that no appeal was preferred by the
\nState of Gujarat against the acquittal of the accused no.2.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIt is argued by learned Advocate Mr. Sharma that  there was delay
\nof 25 days in filing the complaint. According to him, neither the
\ncomplainant nor Mr. Bhalsod  has tendered  explanation for such delay
\nwhich is fatal to the prosecution case. The learned Advocate,
\ntherefore, submitted that the learned Special Judge has not
\nconsidered this aspect and by that committed error in convicting the
\nappellant-accused no.1. The learned Advocate next argued that PW1 Mr.
\nJ.I.Gandhvi has no personal knowledge about the incident of theft of
\nelectricity. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate that during
\nthe investigation or at the time of visiting the premises in question
\nPW 4 Mr. Bhalsod had not prepared Panchnama of spot and that he had
\nalso not recovered the Muddamal in presence of independent Panchas.
\nFurther, no seizure memo was prepared and no procedure as laid down
\nunder Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code was followed by him
\nwhich is fatal to the case of the prosecution. According to him, the
\nlearned Special Judge has also not considered this aspect and
\ncommitted error in convicting the accused. It was next argued by Mr.
\nSharma that at the fag end of the trial, charge Exh.5 was altered on
\n31st July, 2007 which caused great prejudice to the
\ninterest of the accused, and therefore, not legal. It is also the
\nsubmission of the learned Advocate that the appellant-accused no.1
\nGopalbhai had signed in the Rojkam which was prepared on the spot by
\nPW 4 Mr. Bhalsod as a representative of Anandiben and not as a
\ntenant, and therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the
\nappellant-accused no.1 Gopalbhai was tenant of the premises in
\nquestion, and therefore, the conclusion reached by the learned
\nSpecial Judge that the accused no.1 is a tenant of the premises in
\nquestion is erroneous and as such the accused no.1 has been wrongly
\nconvicted. Mr. Sharma, learned Advocate next argued that the case
\nagainst the accused no.1 false under Section 126 of the Electricity
\nAct and not under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, and therefore,
\nthe accused no.1 cannot be tried for the offence of theft of
\nelectricity. It is also submitted by learned Advocate Mr. Sharma that
\nRs.87,798.94ps  assessed as charges toward electric bill  is falsely
\ncalculated by the complainant and relying upon such baseless
\ncalculation the learned trial Judge has committed error in imposing
\nthree times the fine and by that committed error. Mr. Sharma finally
\nsubmitted that the accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt and
\nthe appeal deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tAs against that, learned APP Ms. Darshna Pandit submitted that
\nafter appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge
\nhas rightly convicted the accused. According to the learned APP the
\nlearned Special Judge has passed  a well reasoned judgment and order
\nwhich is quite legal and proper and hence not required to be
\ninterfered with and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tLearned Advocate Ms. Mayaben Desai appearing for MGVCL places on
\nrecord the calculation arrived at by the Officer as per the ABCD
\nformula under the Rules and no mistake is committed by the officer in
\ncalculating the amount of Rs.87,798.94ps.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThis Court has gone through the entire evidence on record oral as
\nwell as documentary. The important witness PW 4 Hasmukhlal L. Bhalsod
\n who was Junior Engineer at the relevant time and who visited the
\npremises in question and found that by taking  electric connection
\ndirectly from the pole using private wire the accused no.1-Gopalbhai
\nhad committed theft of electricity. This Court has minutely gone
\nthrough the evidence of this witness. Before discussing the evidence
\nof this witness, it is pertinent to note that this witness is a
\nGovernment servant and he has no enmity with the accused persons . As
\nper the evidence of this witness, he visited the premises to serve
\nnotice to one Smt. Anandiben A. Gohil whose electric connection was
\npermanently disconnected as per the Samadhan scheme to recover due
\namount of electricity charges. During his visit he found that though
\nthe electric connection was disconnected lines were on and illegally
\nby using private wire the accused no.1 had obtained electric
\nconnection directly from the pole. As per his evidence, the accused
\nno.1-the present appellant Gopalbhai was present but the accused
\nno.2-Survirsinh alias Suresh Amarbhai Gohil was not present. He
\nidentified the accused no.1 before the Court also.  Immediately, on
\nthe spot, he had also prepared the Rojkam and map  of the place which
\nshows how the accused have committed theft of electricity directly
\nfrom the pole. Exh.16 is the  Rojkam and Exh.17 is the map of the
\nplace. He immediately called two linemen ?  one Muktarsing Shikh, PW
\n3 Exh.14 and the other  M.I. Diwan, PW 6 Exh.32. He also obtained
\nsignature of both these linemen as well as one Senior Assistant
\nMr.Vinodkumar S, PW 2, Exh.13 who was with him at the time of visit.
\nThe accused no.1 also signed on the said Rojkam which is produced at
\nExh.16 and also made an endorsement to the effect that the contents
\nof the said Rojkam are true and correct and that he had signed the
\nsame on his own free will without any coercion or any kind of threat.
\nAs per the evidence of this witness, he seized the wire which was
\nused for obtaining illegal electric connection directly from the pole
\nand also the meter and service wire and sent it along with Rojkam and
\nmap to the MGVCL office, Nadiad. Nothing has come out from the
\ncross-examination of this witness which could falsify his version or
\ncreate doubt about the truthfulness of his deposition. This witness
\nadmitted in cross-examination that he has neither prepared panchnama
\nof scene of offence nor recorded the statement of neighbours.
\nAccording to this witness, he has also not prepared seizure memo or
\nsupplied copy of the seizure memo to the accused . He also admitted
\nthat he has not lodged the complaint immediately against the accused.
\n He denied that he had not obtained the signature of Gopalbhai in
\nRojkam. During the evidence of this witness rent note Exh.24 is
\nproved which clearly shows that the accused no.1 was tenant of the
\npremises. The evidence of Mr.H.L.Bhalsod, PW 4 is corroborated by the
\nevidence of Mr. Jasubhai Ishubhai Gandhvi, PW 1. He has specifically
\nstated on oath before the Court that along with the complaint, he has
\nproduced the Muddamal meter as well as the wire before the PSO which
\nwas produced by Mr. H.L.Bhalsod, PW 4 in office. The evidence of
\nBhalsod is also corroborated by the evidence of PW 2 Vinodkumar who
\naccompanied him at the time of visit of the premises on the day of
\nincident and he also narrated the same story which is narrated by PW\n<\/p>\n
4. He also specifically stated on oath that Muddamal meter and wire
\nwere seized from the place and brought to the MGVCL office and
\nthereafter, it was sent to the Police Station. PW 3 Muktarsing and PW
\n6 Mohmed I. Diwan also supported the evidence of PW 4 Mr. Bhalsod. PW
\n6 M.I. Diwan stated on oath that he had  PW 3 Muktarsing  were called
\nby PW 4 Mr. Bhalsod on the spot and as per the instruction of PW 4
\nMr. Bhalsod he climbed on the pole and cut off the connection. He
\nalso stated on oath that thereafter Line Inspector Muktarsing PW 3
\nand Helper seized the meter and wire. He specifically stated on oath
\nthat this meter is seized from the shop of Gopalbhai Rana and that
\nGopalbhai Rana had illegally obtained the electric connection
\ndirectly from the pole. According to the evidence of this witness,
\nthereafter, the said meter and wire were deposited in the MGVCL
\nOffice, Nadiad.  This witness has also deposed that the accused
\nGopalbhai Rana had also supplied electric connection from his illegal
\nconnection to one person who was running flour mill. He also stated
\non oath that at that time the accused Gopalbhai Rana was present. He
\ndenied in cross-examination that from the place of Gopalbhai wire or
\nmeter was not recovered or that he had not seen Gopalbhai on the
\nspot. The evidence of PW 4 H.L.Bhalsod is fully corroborated by the
\nevidence of complainant     PW 1 Jasubhai I. Gadhvi and two other
\nGovernment servants ?  PW 2 Vinodkumar who was with PW 4 Bhalsod and
\nPW 3 Muktarsing as well as PW 6 M.I. Diwan. It is interesting to note
\nthat all these four witnesses have no enmity with the accused persons
\nand there is no reason to give false evidence against the accused
\npersons. Merely because procedure under  Chapter VII of the Criminal
\nProcedure Code Section 99 to 101 is  not followed by PW 4 Mr.
\nBhalsod, it cannot be said that the whole case of the prosecution is
\nfalse and only on this sole ground, the prosecution case should be
\nthrown out. This lapse can be said to be merely an irregularity
\ncommitted by the officer and when the evidence of PW 4 is found to be
\ntrustworthy and inspiring confidence which is corroborated by the
\ndocumentary as well as by the oral evidence, then only on the ground
\nof irregularity committed by this witness of not following the
\nprocedure  as stated above, the prosecution case cannot be thrown
\nout. PW 4 Mr. Bhalsod the premises in question in his capacity as
\nofficer on duty and not in the capacity of Investigating Officer and
\nso it is not required to follow the procedure laid down  in Chapter
\nVII Cr.P.C. Sections 99 to 101. Even assuming that the said procedure
\nis required to be followed, then also it can be said to be mere
\nirregularity and by that no serious prejudice can be caused to the
\ninterest of the accused or the prosecution case.  This Court has gone
\nthrough the entire judgment delivered by the learned Special Judge,
\nKheda at Nadiad and found that the learned Special Judge has
\nappreciated the evidence in its true perspective and by his well
\nreasoned judgment had rightly acquitted the accused no.2 and
\nconvicted the accused no.1.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tAs far as the delay in filing FIR is concerned, it is not fatal
\nto the case of the prosecution. This is not a case in which  the
\noffence in question is punishable under IPC where there is a
\nrequirement to lodge complaint immediately after the incident  takes
\nplace  so that the complaint may not be lodged on an after thought.
\nIn cases where offence is under IPC delay in filing FIR creates doubt
\nabout the prosecution case. The instant case is registered under 135
\nof the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, and therefore, question of
\nfiling complaint on  an after thought or with ulterior motive to
\nimplicate the accused does not arise.  In the present case, on the
\nday of the incident Rojkam and map was prepared and Muddamal was
\nrecovered and immediately sent to the office. There is no period of
\nlimitation prescribed under the Electricity Act to lodge the
\ncomplaint within a prescribed time. When the signature of the accused
\nis obtained on Exh.16 Rojkam on the same day, then it can very well
\nbe said that the incident took place on 26th April,2005.
\nAs far as the legal position is concerned PW 4 Mr. H.L. Bhalsod
\nvisited the premises only for serving the notice in the capacity of a
\nJunior Engineer, MGVCL and not as an Investigating Officer on getting
\nany information of theft.  Therefore, the Rojkam which is prepared by
\nMr. Bhalsold and signed by the accused no.1 Gopalbhai is admissible
\nin evidence as this cannot be construed as a statement before the
\nPolice or Investigating Officer.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tAs far as the calculated of the amount of electricity charges due
\nis concerned, it is pertinent to note that the defence has not raised
\nany question during the recording of deposition of any witness
\nregarding any error in the calculation of Rs.87,978.94ps. Learned
\nAdvocate Ms. Mayaben for the GEB has been able to convince this Court
\nthat the amount of Rs.87,978.94ps. is rightly calculated under the
\nRules as per ABCD formula.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThere is also no substance in the argument of learned Advocate
\nMr. Sharma that the present case falls under Section 126 of the
\nIndian Electricity Act i.e. of malpractice and not under Section 135
\nof the Indian Electricity Act with regard to theft.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tAs far as Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act is concerned
\nit pertains to ?Sunauthorised use of electricity??  which is a
\ncivil liability while Section 135 pertains to theft of electricity.
\nReference in this connection may be had to the decision rendered in
\nthe case of Torrent Power A.E.C.Ltd. v. Gayatri Intermediates,<\/a>
\n2006(2) G.L.R. p.1580 wherein it has been held at para 12.3 as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t?SOn interpretation, therefore, we hold that the expression
\n?Sunauthorised use of electricity?? in Section 126 only deals with
\ncases of unauthorised use even in absence of mens rea and such cases
\nare different from the theft cases enumerated and illustrated in
\nSection 135(1) which involve mens rea.??\n<\/p>\n
16.\tThere is also another decision in the case of PLASTO PROCESSORS &
\nANR. V. GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS,<\/a>  2005(2) G.L.R. 993
\nwherein it has been held that Section 126 of the Indian Electricity
\nAct,2003 pertains to Assessment at enhanced rates for ?S
\nunauthorised use of electricity and that assessment at enhanced rates
\nwould also apply in cases of theft of electricity. It would be
\nrelevant  to note here the observations made in para 10 of the
\njudgment which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t?S10………..Even if one goes by general proposition, the theft
\nof electricity can be said as unauthorised use of electricity because
\nthe person who used the electricity is not so authorised to use of
\nelectricity by the manner or through the method of committing theft,
\nand therefore, it can be said that all cases of theft of electricity
\nwould also be included in the case of unauthorised use of
\nelectricity, but the reverse is not true, namely, that all
\nunauthorised use of electricity are not necessarily the theft of
\nelectricity, but all cases of theft of electricity are also
\nunauthorised use of electricity……………………??\n<\/p>\n
17.\tMr. Sharma learned Advocate for the petitioner has also relied on
\nthe decision rendered in the case of THAKORE K. PATEL V. GUJARAT
\nELECTRICITY BOARD,<\/a> 2003(1) G.L.R 506, however, there, the facts are
\non an entirely different footing and cannot be made application to
\nthe facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tIn the case on hand, it is proved by the prosecution that theft
\nis committed by the accused by leading cogent and reliable evidence
\nand nothing has come out in the evidence which shows that accused is
\ninvolved in malpractice of power supply or that there is unauthorised
\nuse of electricity excluding theft. Under the circumstances, it can
\nsafely be concluded that the present case falls under Section 135 of
\nthe Act and that the learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the
\naccused no.1  and imposed the fine as per the provisions of Section
\n135 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tLastly, Mr. Sharma alternatively submitted that if the Court
\ncomes to the conclusion that the judgment and order of conviction and
\nsentence does not deserve to be quashed and set aside, the Court may
\nconsider the question of reducing the sentence awarded by the learned
\nSpecial Judge on the ground that the petitioner is the only earning
\nmember in the family, that the accused no.1 has not committed any
\nother offence in past  and he is a poor person. It is also the
\nsubmission of the learned Advocate Mr. Sharma that the petitioner is
\nin jail since more than 10 months.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tAs a result of the foregoing discussion, I do not think that this
\nis a fit case for taking a lenient view and reducing the sentence as
\ntheft of electricity is ever increasing  and it is a serious threat
\nbeing faced by Electricity Boards all over the country and it is
\nrequired to be curbed. It would be beneficial here to draw reference
\nto the judgment delivered by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of
\nJAGMOHAN MEHATABSING GUJARAL &  ORS. V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,<\/a>
\n2007(1) G.L.R. 643  wherein at paragraph 29 of the judgment as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t?S Large-scale theft of electricity is a very alarming problem
\nfaced by all the State Electricity Boards in our country, which is
\ncausing loss to the State revenue running in hundreds of crores of
\nrupees every year. In our considered view, after proper adjudication
\nof the cases of all those who are found to be guilty of the offence
\nof committing theft of electricity, apart from the sentence of
\nconviction, the Court should invariable impose heavy fine, making
\ntheft of electricity a wholly  non-profitable venture. The most
\neffective step to curb this tendency perhaps could be to discontinue
\nthe supply of electricity to those consumers temporarily or
\npermanently who have been caught extracting electricity in a
\nclandestine manner on more than one occasion. The legislation may
\nconsider incorporating this suggestion as form of punishment by
\namending Sec.39 of the Electricity Act.1910.??\n<\/p>\n
21.\tThe learned Special Judge after taking into consideration the
\nnature of offence convicted the accused no.1 and  awarded the
\nsentence of R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.2,63,000\/-, in default
\nR.I. for six months i.e. the minimum prescribed fine under Section
\n135 of the Act which is quite just and reasonable calling for no
\ninterference at the hands of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
22.\tThe appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(M.D.Shah,J.)<\/p>\n
lee.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Gopalbhai vs Unknown on 15 July, 2008 Author: Md Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CR.A\/1191\/2007 18\/ 18 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1191 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-194193","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGopalbhai vs Unknown on 15 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gopalbhai vs Unknown on 15 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-23T06:29:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gopalbhai vs Unknown on 15 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-23T06:29:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3824,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Gopalbhai vs Unknown on 15 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-23T06:29:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gopalbhai vs Unknown on 15 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Gopalbhai vs Unknown on 15 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gopalbhai vs Unknown on 15 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-23T06:29:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gopalbhai vs Unknown on 15 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-23T06:29:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008"},"wordCount":3824,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008","name":"Gopalbhai vs Unknown on 15 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-23T06:29:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalbhai-vs-unknown-on-15-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gopalbhai vs Unknown on 15 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194193","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=194193"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194193\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194193"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194193"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194193"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}