State vs Chandan Singh Advocate - Inder singh bhati — 57/2018

Case under Electricity Act Section 136. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

Session Case

CNR: RJJS010006142018

Filing Number

483/2018

Filing Date

30-May-2018

Registration No

57/2018

Registration Date

30-May-2018

Court

DJ Jaisalmer District HQ

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 22-Jun-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

01

Police Station

Nokh

Year

2018

Acts & Sections

Electricity Act Section 136
Indian Penal Code Section 379

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

    Adv. PP

  2. 2.Babu Singh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Chandan Singh Advocate - Inder singh bhati

  2. 2.Sumer Singh

  3. 3.Aasu Singh

  4. 4.Prithavi Singh

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY Case 57/2018: State and Babu Singh v. Chandan Singh Advocate and Others The Special Judge (Electricity Act) at Jaisalmer acquitted all five accused—Chandan Singh, Prithvi Singh, Asu Singh, Sumer Singh, and Babu Singh—of theft charges under IPC Section 379 and Section 136 of the Electricity Act on March 18, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient evidence, missing testimony from company representatives regarding wire ownership, absence of identification marks on seized electrical wires, and procedural irregularities in the recovery process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Appearance of accused

    District Judge

  6. 26-Feb-2026

    Appearance of accused

    District Judge

  7. 13-Feb-2026

    Appearance of accused

    District Judge

  8. 12-Dec-2025

    Appearance of accused

    District Judge

  9. 09-Oct-2025

    Appearance of accused

    District Judge

  10. 08-Aug-2025

    Appearance of accused

    District Judge

  11. 05-Jul-2025

    Appearance of accused

    District Judge

  12. 05-Apr-2025

    Appearance of accused

    District and Sessions Judge

  13. 31-Jan-2025

    Appearance of accused

    District and Sessions Judge

  14. 28-Nov-2024

    Appearance of accused

    District and Sessions Judge

  15. 15-Oct-2024

    Appearance of accused

    District and Sessions Judge

  16. 14-Oct-2024

    Appearance of accused

    District and Sessions Judge

  17. 02-Aug-2024

    Appearance of accused

    District and Sessions Judge

  18. 04-Jun-2024

    Appearance of accused

    District and Sessions Judge

  19. 29-Apr-2024

    Appearance of accused

    District and Sessions Judge

  20. 15-Mar-2024

    Appearance of accused

    District and Sessions Judge

  21. 09-Jan-2024

    Appearance of accused

    District and Sessions Judge

  22. 13-Dec-2023

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    District and Sessions Judge

  23. 21-Nov-2023

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    District and Sessions Judge

  24. 02-Nov-2023

    Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.

    District and Sessions Judge

  25. 10-Oct-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  26. 02-Sep-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  27. 15-Jul-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  28. 09-Jun-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  29. 18-Apr-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  30. 03-Mar-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  31. 06-Feb-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  32. 23-Dec-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  33. 22-Nov-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  34. 21-Nov-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  35. 11-Oct-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  36. 10-Oct-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  37. 04-Aug-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  38. 03-Aug-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  39. 16-May-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  40. 02-Feb-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  41. 27-Sep-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  42. 28-Jun-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  43. 03-Mar-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  44. 03-Dec-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  45. 23-Oct-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  46. 20-Aug-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  47. 23-Jun-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Addl District and Sessions Judge

  48. 05-May-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  49. 31-Jan-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  50. 20-Sep-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  51. 24-Apr-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  52. 12-Dec-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  53. 29-Aug-2018

    Prosecution Evidence

    District and Sessions Judge

  54. 10-Jul-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  55. 30-May-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. 57/2018

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY Case 57/2018: State and Babu Singh v. Chandan Singh Advocate and Others The Special Judge (Electricity Act) at Jaisalmer acquitted all five accused—Chandan Singh, Prithvi Singh, Asu Singh, Sumer Singh, and Babu Singh—of theft charges under IPC Section 379 and Section 136 of the Electricity Act on March 18, 2026. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient evidence, missing testimony from company representatives regarding wire ownership, absence of identification marks on seized electrical wires, and procedural irregularities in the recovery process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case