- (1.) The Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited ('the company', in short), is aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.08.2008 passed by Special Judge (Electricity Act Cases) & Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused-respondent, Darshan Lal alias Darshan, for offences under Sections 135 Electricity Act 2003, and Section 3 PDPP Act.
(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that on 08.09.2006, Hanuman Singh (P.W.1), Assistant Engineer, JVVNL, Hanumangarh, submitted a written report, wherein he claimed that accused committed the theft of electricity by hanging a hook on Pole No.8/4 of L.T. Line. On the basis of this written report, a formal FIR, FIR No.556/2006 for offences under Section 135 Electricity Act, Section 379 IPC, and for offence under Section 3, PDPP Act was registered at Police Station Hanumangarh Junction. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused-respondent for the offence under Sections 135 of the Electricity Act and offence under Section 3 PPDP Act. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and submitted thirteen documents. The defence examined one witness, Mr. Rajendra Pal. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 06.08.2008, the learned Judge acquitted the accused-respondent.
(3.) Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this Court Mr. Ravi Bhansali, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has mis-appreciated the entire evidence produced by the prosecution. Although the learned Judge has concluded that the FIR was delayed by almost ten days, but the company was justified in lodging the FIR belatedly. For before lodging the FIR, the company was required to give a notice to the accused about the civil liability of having committed theft of electricity and damages caused to the electric wire.;