THE STATE vs NAYNABEN BAHADURSINH PADHERIYA Advocate - SERVED — 47/2024
Case under Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135(1)A. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 08th April 2026.
ELEC - SPECIAL CASE - ELECTRICITY
CNR: GJAH240014812024
Filing Number
47/2024
Filing Date
02-Aug-2024
Registration No
47/2024
Registration Date
02-Aug-2024
Court
Addl. Court Dholka
Judge
2-8th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
08-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Last updated 16-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
8002
Police Station
GEB POLICE STATION - SABARMATI - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT
Year
2023
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE
Adv. J C PATEL
Respondent(s)
-
1.NAYNABEN BAHADURSINH PADHERIYA Advocate - SERVED
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary The court acquitted defendant Nayanaben Bahadursingh Patheriya of electricity theft charges under Section 135(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, finding insufficient conclusive evidence. The court noted critical procedural lapses: the FIR was filed 18 days after the alleged incident without explanation, no proper panchnama (witness record) was conducted at the crime scene with the defendant present, no material evidence was recovered and produced before the court, and no independent witnesses were examined. Applying established precedent from Gujarat High Court judgments, the court held that ownership of the premises where theft allegedly occurred must be conclusively proved, and procedural formalities under the Criminal Procedure Code must be strictly followed—none of which occurred here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-Apr-2026
Disposed
8th Addl District Judge
-
30-Mar-2026
Judgement
8th Addl District Judge
-
17-Mar-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
8th Addl District Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Process To Accused
8th Addl District Judge
-
18-Feb-2026
Process To Accused
8th Addl District Judge
-
20-Jan-2026
Process To Accused
8th Addl District Judge
-
22-Dec-2025
Process To Accused
9th Addl District Judge
-
24-Nov-2025
Framing Of Charge/Plea
9th Addl District Judge
-
04-Nov-2025
Framing Of Charge/Plea
9th Addl District Judge
-
29-Sep-2025
Framing Of Charge/Plea
9th Addl District Judge
-
01-Sep-2025
Framing Of Charge/Plea
9th Addl District Judge
-
12-Aug-2025
Framing Of Charge/Plea
9th Addl District Judge
-
01-Jul-2025
Framing Of Charge/Plea
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
23-May-2025
Framing Of Charge/Plea
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
19-Apr-2025
Framing Of Charge/Plea
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
01-Mar-2025
Framing Of Charge/Plea
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
01-Feb-2025
Process To Accused
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
21-Dec-2024
Process To Accused
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
30-Nov-2024
Process To Accused
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
19-Oct-2024
Process To Accused
Addl.district & Sessions Judge
-
18-Sep-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Aug-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 47/2024
Case Summary The court acquitted defendant Nayanaben Bahadursingh Patheriya of electricity theft charges under Section 135(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, finding insufficient conclusive evidence. The court noted critical procedural lapses: the FIR was filed 18 days after the alleged incident without explanation, no proper panchnama (witness record) was conducted at the crime scene with the defendant present, no material evidence was recovered and produced before the court, and no independent witnesses were examined. Applying established precedent from Gujarat High Court judgments, the court held that ownership of the premises where theft allegedly occurred must be conclusively proved, and procedural formalities under the Criminal Procedure Code must be strictly followed—none of which occurred here. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts