THE STATE vs GITABEN DHIRUBHAI KO.PATEL Advocate - P R CHAUHAN — 68/2024

Case under Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135(1)B. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 27th April 2026.

Case disposed

ELEC - SPECIAL CASE - ELECTRICITY

CNR: GJAH240019202024

Filing Number

68/2024

Filing Date

13-Nov-2024

Registration No

68/2024

Registration Date

13-Nov-2024

Court

Addl. Court Dholka

Judge

2-8th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

27-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 16-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

2804

Police Station

GEB POLICE STATION - SABARMATI - AHMEDABAD DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135(1)B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE

    Adv. J C PATEL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.GITABEN DHIRUBHAI KO.PATEL Advocate - P R CHAUHAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary The Additional District and Sessions Court in Dholka acquitted the accused Gitaben Dhirubhai Patel of electricity theft charges under Section 135(1)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act 2003, finding insufficient evidence to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical deficiencies in the prosecution's case, including lack of proper documentation of ownership of the property where the alleged theft occurred, delayed filing of the complaint (11 days after the incident), failure to follow proper procedure under Section 135(3) regarding seizure and panchanama (inspection report), and conflicting witness testimonies that did not support the complainant's version of events. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    8th Addl District Judge

  4. 10-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    8th Addl District Judge

  5. 08-Apr-2026

    Further Statement

    8th Addl District Judge

  6. 07-Apr-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  7. 24-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  8. 11-Mar-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  9. 25-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  10. 04-Feb-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  11. 22-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  12. 06-Jan-2026

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    8th Addl District Judge

  13. 12-Dec-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    9th Addl District Judge

  14. 02-Dec-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    9th Addl District Judge

  15. 12-Nov-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    9th Addl District Judge

  16. 08-Oct-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    9th Addl District Judge

  17. 12-Sep-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    9th Addl District Judge

  18. 20-Aug-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    9th Addl District Judge

  19. 05-Jul-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  20. 25-Jun-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  21. 22-May-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  22. 19-Apr-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  23. 01-Mar-2025

    Framing Of Charge/Plea

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  24. 01-Feb-2025

    Process To Accused

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  25. 21-Dec-2024

    Process To Accused

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  26. 30-Nov-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 13-Nov-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 68/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Additional District and Sessions Court in Dholka acquitted the accused Gitaben Dhirubhai Patel of electricity theft charges under Section 135(1)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act 2003, finding insufficient evidence to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted critical deficiencies in the prosecution's case, including lack of proper documentation of ownership of the property where the alleged theft occurred, delayed filing of the complaint (11 days after the incident), failure to follow proper procedure under Section 135(3) regarding seizure and panchanama (inspection report), and conflicting witness testimonies that did not support the complainant's version of events. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case