State of U.P. vs Pursottam misra — 16/2018
Case under Indian Electricity Act Section 138(B). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 08th April 2026.
Special Trial
CNR: UPJP010001442018
Filing Number
102/2018
Filing Date
06-Jan-2018
Registration No
16/2018
Registration Date
06-Jan-2018
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
4-4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
Decision Date
08-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 23-Apr-2026
FIR Details
Police Station
PAWARA
Year
0
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State of U.P.
Respondent(s)
-
1.Pursottam misra
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Apr-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Court Decision Summary The court acquitted Purushottam Mishra of charges under Section 138(B) of the Electricity Act, 2003, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the offense "beyond reasonable doubt." The court held that the prosecution's sole witness (a sub-engineer) provided insufficient corroboration, lacked supporting documentary evidence, and the site inspection map contained material discrepancies, undermining the credibility of the complaint regarding alleged illegal electricity reconnection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-Apr-2026
Disposed
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
03-Apr-2026
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
02-Apr-2026
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
23-Mar-2026
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
16-Mar-2026
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
10-Mar-2026
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
16-Jan-2026
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
27-Nov-2025
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
24-Oct-2025
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
09-Sep-2025
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
01-Aug-2025
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
31-May-2025
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
10-Apr-2025
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
11-Feb-2025
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
10-Dec-2024
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
17-Oct-2024
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
05-Sep-2024
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
18-Jul-2024
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
21-May-2024
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
19-Apr-2024
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
19-Mar-2024
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
04-Mar-2024
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
06-Feb-2024
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
15-Dec-2023
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
20-Oct-2023
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
05-Sep-2023
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
24-Jul-2023
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
20-May-2023
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
04-Apr-2023
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
28-Feb-2023
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
27-Jan-2023
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
05-Dec-2022
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
21-Oct-2022
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
21-Sep-2022
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
18-Aug-2022
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
08-Aug-2022
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
21-Jun-2022
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
17-May-2022
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
04-Apr-2022
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
19-Feb-2022
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
10-Jan-2022
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
26-Nov-2021
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
20-Oct-2021
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
15-Sep-2021
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
15-Jul-2021
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
16-Jun-2021
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
18-May-2021
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
31-Mar-2021
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
12-Feb-2021
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
22-Jan-2021
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
14-Dec-2020
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
20-Nov-2020
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
02-Nov-2020
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
18-Sep-2020
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
06-Aug-2020
Evidence
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
24-Jun-2020
Hearing
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
14-May-2020
Hearing
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
03-Apr-2020
Hearing
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
13-Feb-2020
Hearing
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
17-Dec-2019
Hearing
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
04-Nov-2019
Hearing
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
21-Sep-2019
Hearing
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
25-Jun-2019
Hearing
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
17-May-2019
Hearing
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
09-Apr-2019
Hearing
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
21-Feb-2019
Hearing
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
16-Jan-2019
Hearing
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
15-Jan-2019
Hearing
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
04-Dec-2018
Hearing
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
26-Nov-2018
Hearing
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
13-Nov-2018
Hearing
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
11-Oct-2018
Appearance
4th A.D.J. /Special Judge (E.c. Act)
-
09-Aug-2018
Appearance
-
26-Jul-2018
Appearance
A.D.J./Special Judge(E.C. Act.
-
15-Jun-2018
Appearance
A.D.J./Special Judge(E.C. Act.
-
07-May-2018
Appearance
A.D.J./Special Judge(E.C. Act.
-
28-Apr-2018
Appearance
A.D.J./Special Judge(E.C. Act.
-
28-Mar-2018
Appearance
A.D.J./Special Judge(E.C. Act.
-
13-Mar-2018
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
06-Jan-2018
Case filed
Registration No. 16/2018
Court Decision Summary The court acquitted Purushottam Mishra of charges under Section 138(B) of the Electricity Act, 2003, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the offense "beyond reasonable doubt." The court held that the prosecution's sole witness (a sub-engineer) provided insufficient corroboration, lacked supporting documentary evidence, and the site inspection map contained material discrepancies, undermining the credibility of the complaint regarding alleged illegal electricity reconnection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts