State of Maharashtra vs Shivaji Ramnath Abhang Advocate - Gunjal M. B. — 7/2019
Case under Indian Electricity Act Section 138. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 23rd March 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHAH070000742019
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
36/2019
Filing Date
08-02-2019
Registration No
7/2019
Registration Date
08-02-2019
Court
District and Session Court , Sangamner
Judge
6-District Judge-3 And Additional Sessions Judge Sangamner
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
169
Police Station
Sangamner City Police Station
Year
2018
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. Gavate M. P.
Respondent(s)
Shivaji Ramnath Abhang Advocate - Gunjal M. B.
Hearing History
Judge: 6-District Judge-3 And Additional Sessions Judge Sangamner
Disposed
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 24-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 18-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 04-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge at Sangamner acquitted Shivaji Ramnath Abhang of charges under Section 138 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, finding the prosecution failed to prove unauthorized interference with MSEDCL electricity supply. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: no seizure of materials used, a vague panchnama lacking date/time, material inconsistencies between witnesses, a three-day delay in FIR filing despite the complainant claiming to have witnessed the offense, and no investigation into the actual beneficiary of the alleged illegal connection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Additional Sessions Judge at Sangamner acquitted Shivaji Ramnath Abhang of charges under Section 138 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, finding the prosecution failed to prove unauthorized interference with MSEDCL electricity supply. The court noted critical evidentiary gaps: no seizure of materials used, a vague panchnama lacking date/time, material inconsistencies between witnesses, a three-day delay in FIR filing despite the complainant claiming to have witnessed the offense, and no investigation into the actual beneficiary of the alleged illegal connection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts