State of Maharashtra vs Eknath Baburao Karanjekar Advocate - Kanhore G. L. — 100043/2014
Case under Indian Electricity Act Section 135. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 16th March 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHAH070002192014
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
100110/2014
Filing Date
26-03-2014
Registration No
100043/2014
Registration Date
26-03-2014
Court
District and Session Court , Sangamner
Judge
6-District Judge-3 And Additional Sessions Judge Sangamner
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
21
Police Station
Sangamner Taluka Police Station
Year
2006
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Eknath Baburao Karanjekar Advocate - Kanhore G. L.
Hearing History
Judge: 6-District Judge-3 And Additional Sessions Judge Sangamner
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 04-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 21-02-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. | |
| 06-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Sangamner acquitted Eknath Baburao Karanjekar of charges under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 for alleged electricity theft. The court found that despite the informant's testimony about discovering an illegal electricity connection at the accused's house in December 2005, the prosecution failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence—including testimony from witnessing panchas, MSEB officials, neighbors, or documentary proof of ownership—to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Additional Sessions Judge at Sangamner acquitted Eknath Baburao Karanjekar of charges under Section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 for alleged electricity theft. The court found that despite the informant's testimony about discovering an illegal electricity connection at the accused's house in December 2005, the prosecution failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence—including testimony from witnessing panchas, MSEB officials, neighbors, or documentary proof of ownership—to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts