STATE vs NAVRATAN Advocate - SHIVDATT — 146/2023
Case under Electricity Act Section 135 (III). Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 29th April 2026.
Session Case
CNR: RJAJ010020852023
Filing Number
1463/2023
Filing Date
02-May-2023
Registration No
146/2023
Registration Date
02-May-2023
Court
DJ ADJ Ajmer District HQ
Judge
2-Addl District and Sessions Judge I
Decision Date
29-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Last updated 06-Jun-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
133
Police Station
Anti Power Theft Ajmer
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE
Adv. SPP AVVNL
Respondent(s)
-
1.NAVRATAN Advocate - SHIVDATT
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
29-Apr-2026
JudgementView PDF
Case Summary: State v. Navratan (Case No. 146/2023) Decision: The court acquitted defendant Navratan of electricity theft charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: While electricity theft was allegedly detected at a property on 27-09-2021 with an illegal wire drawing power from an LT line, critical evidentiary gaps undermined the case. The court noted: (1) no documentary evidence proved Navratan owned/controlled the premises—witnesses found a woman (Sanjana) present there; (2) the investigating officer's own testimony contradicted the FIR date; (3) notice of liability was never proven delivered to the accused; (4) corroborating witnesses from the inspection team did not support the key investigator's sworn statements; and (5) no ownership documents were presented. Benefiting from reasonable doubt, the accused was acquitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
29-Apr-2026
Disposed
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
28-Apr-2026
Final arguments
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
25-Apr-2026
Final arguments
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
17-Apr-2026
Final arguments
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
16-Apr-2026
Final arguments
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
13-Apr-2026
Final arguments
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
08-Apr-2026
Final arguments
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
06-Apr-2026
Final arguments
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
01-Apr-2026
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
13-Mar-2026
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
13-Feb-2026
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
06-Feb-2026
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
29-Jan-2026
Prosecution Evidence
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
21-Nov-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
14-Oct-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
21-Aug-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
17-Jun-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
25-Mar-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
23-Jan-2025
Prosecution Evidence
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
21-Nov-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
10-Sep-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
15-Jun-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
04-Apr-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
24-Jan-2024
Prosecution Evidence
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
28-Nov-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
12-Sep-2023
Prosecution Evidence
Addl District and Sessions Judge I
-
23-Jun-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-May-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 146/2023
Case Summary: State v. Navratan (Case No. 146/2023) Decision: The court acquitted defendant Navratan of electricity theft charges under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003, finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: While electricity theft was allegedly detected at a property on 27-09-2021 with an illegal wire drawing power from an LT line, critical evidentiary gaps undermined the case. The court noted: (1) no documentary evidence proved Navratan owned/controlled the premises—witnesses found a woman (Sanjana) present there; (2) the investigating officer's own testimony contradicted the FIR date; (3) notice of liability was never proven delivered to the accused; (4) corroborating witnesses from the inspection team did not support the key investigator's sworn statements; and (5) no ownership documents were presented. Benefiting from reasonable doubt, the accused was acquitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts