Government of Gujarat vs JAYESHBHAI KANABHAI PINDARIA Advocate - Y M PANDYA — 332/2023

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

Case disposed

ELEC - SPECIAL CASE - ELECTRICITY

CNR: GJJM010042052023

Filing Number

332/2023

Filing Date

21-Nov-2023

Registration No

332/2023

Registration Date

21-Nov-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

2665

Police Station

GUVNL POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat

    Adv. P J PARMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JAYESHBHAI KANABHAI PINDARIA Advocate - Y M PANDYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Apr-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Jayeshbhai Kanabhai Pindaria (332/2023) The Special Court acquitted the accused Jayeshbhai Kanabhai Pindaria of charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for alleged electricity theft. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused's electricity meter was tampered with or that he had unauthorized possession of the premises where the alleged tampering occurred. Key evidentiary gaps included: absence of proper authorization for the checking officials, lack of independent witnesses during inspection, failure to establish continuous possession of the building by the accused, and absence of expert opinion regarding meter defects. The court found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case and ordered the accused's release. 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. 18-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  7. 29-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  8. 05-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  9. 05-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  10. 07-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    4th Addl District Judge

  11. 03-Oct-2025

    Further Statement

    4th Addl District Judge

  12. 01-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  13. 18-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  14. 28-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  15. 07-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  16. 09-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  17. 21-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    4th Addl District Judge

  18. 25-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  19. 05-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  20. 31-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  21. 26-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  22. 08-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  23. 12-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  24. 05-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl.district & Sessions Judge

  25. 24-May-2024

    Process To Accused

    2nd Addl District Judge

  26. 05-Apr-2024

    Framing Of Charge

    3rd Addl District Judge

  27. 19-Jan-2024

    Opening Up Of Case By Prosecution

    3rd Addl District Judge

  28. 28-Nov-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  29. 21-Nov-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 332/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Government of Gujarat v. Jayeshbhai Kanabhai Pindaria (332/2023) The Special Court acquitted the accused Jayeshbhai Kanabhai Pindaria of charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for alleged electricity theft. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused's electricity meter was tampered with or that he had unauthorized possession of the premises where the alleged tampering occurred. Key evidentiary gaps included: absence of proper authorization for the checking officials, lack of independent witnesses during inspection, failure to establish continuous possession of the building by the accused, and absence of expert opinion regarding meter defects. The court found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case and ordered the accused's release. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case