Law: Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, (XI of 2016)

Section: 15, 17, 24

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 342

Law: Police Rules, 1934

Section: 22.48

Summary:

In Criminal Acquittal Appeal regarding the acquittal of Abdul Hafeez (Respondent No. 2), accused of tampering with a gas meter under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, the appellant challenged the trial court’s judgment of acquittal. The prosecution presented evidence including inspection memos, laboratory reports, and testimony of officials who inspected the gas meter, which was found tampered. However, key eyewitnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) turned hostile and denied involvement or knowledge of the alleged offense. The court noted serious unexplained delay in FIR registration and procedural lapses such as absence of Investigating Officer’s movement record. Due to hostile and contradictory testimonies weakening the prosecution's case and lack of corroborative evidence, the trial court correctly acquitted the accused. The appeal was dismissed as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the principle "in dubio pro reo" (benefit of doubt to accused).

Core Points:

1.Delay in FIR Registration: FIR was lodged over two months after the laboratory report, without plausible justification, casting doubt on prosecution's spontaneity and credibility.

2.Failure to Maintain Investigating Officer's Movement Record: No official proof of the Investigating Officer's visit to the site was presented, violating police procedural requirements.