THE STATE OF GUJARAT vs MAKVANA VINUBHAI ARAJANBHAI Advocate - B G MER — 159/2024
Case under Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 20th March 2026.
ELEC - SPECIAL CASE - ELECTRICITY
CNR: GJBN010051032024
Filing Number
159/2024
Filing Date
19-10-2024
Registration No
159/2024
Registration Date
19-10-2024
Court
DISTICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BHAVNAGAR
Judge
2-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
20th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
2747
Police Station
G.U.V.N.L POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. AGP
Respondent(s)
MAKVANA VINUBHAI ARAJANBHAI Advocate - B G MER
Hearing History
Judge: 2-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
FURTHER STATEMENT
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 20-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT |
| 11-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 30-01-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court acquitted the respondent, Makvana Vinubhai Arajanbhai, of charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 for alleged unauthorized electricity theft. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting critical evidentiary gaps including lack of proper documentation of seized materials, absence of independent witness testimony regarding house ownership, no photographs or videography of the scene, and insufficient proof of the respondent's involvement in the alleged offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court acquitted the respondent, Makvana Vinubhai Arajanbhai, of charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act 2003 for alleged unauthorized electricity theft. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting critical evidentiary gaps including lack of proper documentation of seized materials, absence of independent witness testimony regarding house ownership, no photographs or videography of the scene, and insufficient proof of the respondent's involvement in the alleged offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts