Government of Gujarat vs MEHULBHAI VINODBHAI MIYAVARA Advocate - A M PATADIYA — 65/2025
Case under Electricity Act, 2003 Section 135. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 17th March 2026.
ELEC - SPECIAL CASE - ELECTRICITY
CNR: GJSN010024072025
Filing Number
65/2025
Filing Date
13-Nov-2025
Registration No
65/2025
Registration Date
13-Nov-2025
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURENDRANAGAR
Judge
3-6th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
17-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGEMENT
Last updated 16-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
746
Police Station
G.U.V.N.L POLICE STATION - BHAVNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Government of Gujarat
Adv. DGP
Respondent(s)
-
1.MEHULBHAI VINODBHAI MIYAVARA Advocate - A M PATADIYA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
17-Mar-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: 65/2025 Court Decision: The defendant Mehulbhai Vinodbhai Miyavara is acquitted of electricity theft charges under the Indian Electricity Act 2003, Section 135. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural defects in the investigation, including absence of proper panchnama (site inspection document), lack of independent witnesses, no documentary evidence establishing ownership of the property, and failure to seize equipment used for theft. The court found reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's involvement, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
17-Mar-2026
Disposed
6th Addl District Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Final Arguments
6th Addl District Judge
-
19-Feb-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
6th Addl District Judge
-
29-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
6th Addl District Judge
-
15-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
6th Addl District Judge
-
01-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Prosecution
6th Addl District Judge
-
27-Nov-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
13-Nov-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 65/2025
Case Summary: 65/2025 Court Decision: The defendant Mehulbhai Vinodbhai Miyavara is acquitted of electricity theft charges under the Indian Electricity Act 2003, Section 135. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to procedural defects in the investigation, including absence of proper panchnama (site inspection document), lack of independent witnesses, no documentary evidence establishing ownership of the property, and failure to seize equipment used for theft. The court found reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's involvement, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts