State vs Geeta Devi — 298/2024
Case under The Uttar Pradesh Electricity Act,2003 Section 138(1)(b). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 19th March 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: UPKJ010010032024
e-Filing Number
03-02-2024
Filing Number
956/2024
Filing Date
12-Feb-2024
Registration No
298/2024
Registration Date
15-Feb-2024
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
2-ADJ I
Decision Date
19-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 17-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
783
Police Station
ANTI POWER THEFT THANA KANNAUJ
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State
Respondent(s)
-
1.Geeta Devi
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
19-Mar-2026
Judgement PronouncedView PDF
The court acquitted Geeta Devi of charges under Section 138(B) of the Electricity Act 2003 for alleged electricity theft, finding insufficient evidence to prove the accusations. The judge determined that prosecution witnesses provided contradictory testimony, lacked credible documentation (disconnection slip lacked proper signatures and dates), and failed to present necessary technical evidence like electricity meter inspection reports. Additionally, the accused had already paid all outstanding dues and penalties as of March 6, 2026, and the electricity department raised no objections to case closure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
19-Mar-2026
Disposed
ADJ I
-
07-Feb-2026
For Evidence
ADJ I
-
05-Dec-2025
For Evidence
Adj F.t.c.ii
-
04-Oct-2025
For Evidence
Adj F.t.c.ii
-
07-Aug-2025
For Evidence
Adj V
-
16-Jul-2025
For Evidence
Adj V
-
16-May-2025
For Evidence
Adj III
-
02-Apr-2025
For Evidence
Adj III
-
13-Feb-2025
For Evidence
Adj III
-
13-Jan-2025
Hearing
Adj III
-
17-Dec-2024
Hearing
Adj III
-
02-Dec-2024
Hearing
Adj III
-
11-Sep-2024
Hearing
Adj III
-
27-Jun-2024
Hearing
Adj III
-
04-Apr-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
12-Feb-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 298/2024
The court acquitted Geeta Devi of charges under Section 138(B) of the Electricity Act 2003 for alleged electricity theft, finding insufficient evidence to prove the accusations. The judge determined that prosecution witnesses provided contradictory testimony, lacked credible documentation (disconnection slip lacked proper signatures and dates), and failed to present necessary technical evidence like electricity meter inspection reports. Additionally, the accused had already paid all outstanding dues and penalties as of March 6, 2026, and the electricity department raised no objections to case closure. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts