The State Of Gujarat vs JAYSUKHBHARTHI VAJUBHARTHI GAUSWAMI Advocate - A M NAQVI — 4/2026
Case under Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 01st April 2026.
ELEC - SPECIAL CASE - ELECTRICITY
CNR: GJGS090000292026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
4/2026
Filing Date
20-01-2026
Registration No
4/2026
Registration Date
20-01-2026
Court
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - KODINAR
Judge
1-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
01st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
2062
Police Station
GEB POLICE STATION - RAJKOT ZONE - JUNAGADH DISTRICT
Year
2019
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State Of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
JAYSUKHBHARTHI VAJUBHARTHI GAUSWAMI Advocate - A M NAQVI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FURTHER STATEMENT
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 01-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 25-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 24-03-2026 | FURTHER STATEMENT | |
| 17-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION | |
| 10-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused of electricity theft charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key weaknesses included: lack of documentary evidence of property ownership, procedural delays in investigation and panchnama (site inspection), absence of independent witness corroboration, and failure to maintain proper seizure records. The court emphasized that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and discrepancies between witness testimonies and documentary evidence necessitated acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the accused of electricity theft charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Key weaknesses included: lack of documentary evidence of property ownership, procedural delays in investigation and panchnama (site inspection), absence of independent witness corroboration, and failure to maintain proper seizure records. The court emphasized that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and discrepancies between witness testimonies and documentary evidence necessitated acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts