Government of Gujarat vs NITINKUMAR BADRIPRASAD AGRAWAL Advocate - V B RAMSENA — 420/2025

Case under Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135(1)B. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 28th April 2026.

Case disposed

ELEC - SPECIAL CASE - ELECTRICITY

CNR: GJBK010028142025

Filing Number

420/2025

Filing Date

21-Jul-2025

Registration No

420/2025

Registration Date

21-Jul-2025

Court

DISTRICT COURT PALANPUR

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

28-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 27-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

763

Police Station

G.U.V.N.L. POLICE STATION - MAHESANA DISTRICT

Year

2024

Acts & Sections

Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135(1)B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. R P VAISHNAV

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.NITINKUMAR BADRIPRASAD AGRAWAL Advocate - V B RAMSENA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 28-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary of Case 420/2025 Court Decision: The defendant Nitinkumar Badriprasad Agrawal is acquitted of electricity theft charges under Section 135(1)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act 2003, and discharged on the benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to prove the charges conclusively despite presenting evidence that an electricity meter had been tampered with and unauthorized electricity usage detected. Key Reasoning: The court found critical gaps in the prosecution's case including: lack of independent witnesses, absence of proper panchnama (formal site inspection), a significant delay between detection (2 Jan 2024) and filing the complaint (17 March 2024), failure to establish the defendant's responsibility conclusively, and non-compliance with regulatory procedures. While lab testing indicated meter tampering occurred, the court could not determine with certainty that the defendant personally committed the offense versus inheriting a tampered meter through his meter change request. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 27-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge

  5. 21-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge

  6. 18-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge

  7. 15-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge

  8. 04-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge

  9. 30-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge

  10. 12-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge

  11. 06-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  12. 23-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  13. 12-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  14. 05-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  15. 23-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  16. 08-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  17. 29-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  18. 06-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  19. 29-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal District Judge

  20. 20-Nov-2025

    Further Statement

    Principal District Judge

  21. 06-Nov-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District Judge

  22. 09-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District Judge

  23. 18-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District Judge

  24. 29-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal District Judge

  25. 14-Aug-2025

    Hearing On Framing Of Charge/Discharge Application

    Principal District Judge

  26. 28-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  27. 21-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 420/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Case 420/2025 Court Decision: The defendant Nitinkumar Badriprasad Agrawal is acquitted of electricity theft charges under Section 135(1)(b) of the Indian Electricity Act 2003, and discharged on the benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to prove the charges conclusively despite presenting evidence that an electricity meter had been tampered with and unauthorized electricity usage detected. Key Reasoning: The court found critical gaps in the prosecution's case including: lack of independent witnesses, absence of proper panchnama (formal site inspection), a significant delay between detection (2 Jan 2024) and filing the complaint (17 March 2024), failure to establish the defendant's responsibility conclusively, and non-compliance with regulatory procedures. While lab testing indicated meter tampering occurred, the court could not determine with certainty that the defendant personally committed the offense versus inheriting a tampered meter through his meter change request. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case