STATE BY CESC VIGILANCE, MYSURU vs VEENA — 111/2026

Case under Electricity Act Section U/S 135. Disposed: Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

SPL.C - SPECIAL CASES

CNR: KAMS010020472026

Filing Number

111/2026

Filing Date

12-Mar-2026

Registration No

111/2026

Registration Date

12-Mar-2026

Court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU

Judge

426-I Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Electricity Act Section U/S 135

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.STATE BY CESC VIGILANCE, MYSURU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VEENA

  2. 2.PRASANNA KUMAR G P

  3. 3.RANGANATH

  4. 4.MANEESH

  5. 5.SHIVASHANKAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    The Lok Adalath allowed a compromise petition filed by CESC Vigilance (complainant) and the accused (Veena, Prasanna Kumar G P, and Ranganath) under Section 152 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003. The court found the offences were compoundable and the accused had deposited the required fine amount, making the compromise lawful and voluntary. Consequently, the accused were acquitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    I Addl District And Sessions Judge Mysuru

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 111/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Lok Adalath allowed a compromise petition filed by CESC Vigilance (complainant) and the accused (Veena, Prasanna Kumar G P, and Ranganath) under Section 152 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003. The court found the offences were compoundable and the accused had deposited the required fine amount, making the compromise lawful and voluntary. Consequently, the accused were acquitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case