Government of Gujarat vs PARVATIBEN UMAKANTBHAI SADHU Advocate - J A KURESHI — 329/2024

Case under Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135 (1) A. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 13th May 2026.

Case disposed

ELEC - SPECIAL CASE - ELECTRICITY

CNR: GJAH180006142024

Filing Number

329/2024

Filing Date

18-May-2024

Registration No

329/2024

Registration Date

18-May-2024

Court

FTC COURT, VIRAMGAM

Judge

1-6th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

13-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 31-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

5926

Police Station

GEB POLICE STATION - SABARMATI - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135 (1) A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. APP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PARVATIBEN UMAKANTBHAI SADHU Advocate - J A KURESHI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-May-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: 329/2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused, Parvatiben Umakantbhai Sadhu, of electricity theft charges under the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Section 135(1). The prosecution failed to establish the offense due to insufficient and improper evidence collection procedures, particularly regarding the seizure of materials and non-compliance with statutory requirements under Section 135(3) of the Act. Key Reasoning: The court found that the investigation lacked proper documentation, the seized evidence was not properly recorded, no independent witnesses were present during the inspection, and the prosecution's case rested on weak evidence that did not meet the threshold for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-May-2026

    Disposed

    6th Addl District Judge

  4. 22-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    6th Addl District Judge

  5. 08-Apr-2026

    Further Statement

    6th Addl District Judge

  6. 13-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  7. 09-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  8. 07-Jan-2026

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    6th Addl District Judge

  9. 03-Dec-2025

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  10. 16-Oct-2025

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  11. 09-Sep-2025

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  12. 23-Jul-2025

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  13. 20-Jun-2025

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    7th Addl District Judge

  14. 22-Apr-2025

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  15. 27-Feb-2025

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  16. 13-Jan-2025

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  17. 06-Dec-2024

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  18. 06-Nov-2024

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  19. 25-Sep-2024

    Process To Accused

    8th Addl District Judge

  20. 21-Aug-2024

    Process To Accused

    8th Addl District Judge

  21. 19-Jul-2024

    Process To Accused

    8th Addl District Judge

  22. 29-May-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  23. 18-May-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 329/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 329/2024 Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused, Parvatiben Umakantbhai Sadhu, of electricity theft charges under the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Section 135(1). The prosecution failed to establish the offense due to insufficient and improper evidence collection procedures, particularly regarding the seizure of materials and non-compliance with statutory requirements under Section 135(3) of the Act. Key Reasoning: The court found that the investigation lacked proper documentation, the seized evidence was not properly recorded, no independent witnesses were present during the inspection, and the prosecution's case rested on weak evidence that did not meet the threshold for conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case