State of Maharashtra Through PSO Keshori vs Ashok S/o Kewalram Shende (MSEB) Advocate - Shamkuwar Mr. P. S. — 96/2020
Case under Indian Electricity Act Section 135. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 27th March 2026.
Spl.Case - Special Case (Sessions)
CNR: MHGO010007392020
Filing Number
445/2020
Filing Date
08-09-2020
Registration No
96/2020
Registration Date
08-09-2020
Court
District and Session Court , Gondia
Judge
40-District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge Gondia
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
30
Police Station
Keshori
Year
2020
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra Through PSO Keshori
Adv. Chute V.M.
Respondent(s)
Ashok S/o Kewalram Shende (MSEB) Advocate - Shamkuwar Mr. P. S.
Hearing History
Judge: 40-District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge Gondia
Disposed
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 20-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 18-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Special Judge of Gondia acquitted Ashok Shende of electricity theft charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, finding that the prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the prosecution relied solely on interested departmental witnesses without independent corroboration, failed to establish the accused's possession or control of the premises where the alleged theft occurred, and did not prove foundational facts necessary to invoke statutory presumptions. Additionally, the court noted procedural lapses including the absence of documentary evidence regarding the inspection's genuineness and failure to examine independent neighboring witnesses who could have connected the accused to the location. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Special Judge of Gondia acquitted Ashok Shende of electricity theft charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, finding that the prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the prosecution relied solely on interested departmental witnesses without independent corroboration, failed to establish the accused's possession or control of the premises where the alleged theft occurred, and did not prove foundational facts necessary to invoke statutory presumptions. Additionally, the court noted procedural lapses including the absence of documentary evidence regarding the inspection's genuineness and failure to examine independent neighboring witnesses who could have connected the accused to the location. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts