Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. vs SAJIDBHAI HARUNBHAI MALEK Advocate - C K BHATT — 281/2023

Case under Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 27th April 2026.

Case disposed

ELEC - SPECIAL CASE - ELECTRICITY

CNR: GJJM010038182023

Filing Number

281/2023

Filing Date

16-Oct-2023

Registration No

281/2023

Registration Date

16-Oct-2023

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT JANMAGAR

Judge

15-4th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

27-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

Last updated 12-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

2068

Police Station

GUVNL POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2023

Acts & Sections

Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Paschim Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd.

    Adv. P J PARMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SAJIDBHAI HARUNBHAI MALEK Advocate - C K BHATT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: Special Electricity Case No. 281/2023 Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused, Sajidbhai Harunbhai Malek, of electricity theft charges under the Electricity Act, 2003, Section 137P. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to critical procedural deficiencies, including lack of proper independent witnesses during inspection, absence of meter verification records, and insufficient evidence of the accused's ownership/possession of the premises where the alleged theft occurred. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    4th Addl District Judge

  4. 04-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  6. 28-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  7. 04-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  8. 07-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  9. 10-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  10. 24-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  11. 09-Oct-2025

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  12. 11-Sep-2025

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  13. 20-Aug-2025

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  14. 05-Aug-2025

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  15. 19-Jul-2025

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  16. 11-Jul-2025

    Further Statement

    4th Addl District Judge

  17. 19-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  18. 09-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  19. 22-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  20. 25-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  21. 05-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  22. 30-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  23. 28-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  24. 27-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  25. 09-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  26. 05-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  27. 03-May-2024

    Framing Of Charge

    3rd Addl District Judge

  28. 01-Mar-2024

    Framing Of Charge

    3rd Addl District Judge

  29. 15-Dec-2023

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  30. 25-Oct-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 16-Oct-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 281/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Special Electricity Case No. 281/2023 Court Decision: The court acquitted the accused, Sajidbhai Harunbhai Malek, of electricity theft charges under the Electricity Act, 2003, Section 137P. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to critical procedural deficiencies, including lack of proper independent witnesses during inspection, absence of meter verification records, and insufficient evidence of the accused's ownership/possession of the premises where the alleged theft occurred. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case