State vs vimala — 80/2018
Case under Electricity(temporary)control Act Section 138. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 09th March 2026.
Special Trail (e.a.) - Special Trail(Electricity Act)
CNR: UPKJ010013292018
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
80/2018
Filing Date
05-04-2018
Registration No
80/2018
Registration Date
05-04-2018
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
2-ADJ I
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
820
Police Station
GURSAHAIGANJ
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Respondent(s)
vimala
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ADJ I
Disposed
Appearance of accused
Appearance of accused
Appearance of accused
Appearance of accused
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | Appearance of accused | |
| 18-02-2026 | Appearance of accused | |
| 16-02-2026 | Appearance of accused | |
| 03-02-2026 | Appearance of accused |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court acquitted Vimla Devi of charges under Section 138B of the Electricity Act 2003 (unauthorized electricity connection), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the electricity theft beyond reasonable doubt. Although prosecution witnesses testified that the accused had reconnected a previously disconnected meter to steal electricity, the court noted critical gaps in evidence, including missing physical evidence, incomplete FIR documentation, and absence of independent witnesses, rendering the testimony insufficient to establish guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court acquitted Vimla Devi of charges under Section 138B of the Electricity Act 2003 (unauthorized electricity connection), finding that the prosecution failed to prove the electricity theft beyond reasonable doubt. Although prosecution witnesses testified that the accused had reconnected a previously disconnected meter to steal electricity, the court noted critical gaps in evidence, including missing physical evidence, incomplete FIR documentation, and absence of independent witnesses, rendering the testimony insufficient to establish guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts