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

Case disposed

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

ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 Section 135

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

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

20-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

DISTICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BHAVNAGAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case