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

Case disposed

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

ELECTRICITY ACT, 2003 Section 135,

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

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

01-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - KODINAR All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case