State vs vimala — 80/2018

Case under Electricity(temporary)control Act Section 138. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 09th March 2026.

Case disposed

Special Trail (e.a.) - Special Trail(Electricity Act)

CNR: UPKJ010013292018

Filing Number

80/2018

Filing Date

05-Apr-2018

Registration No

80/2018

Registration Date

05-Apr-2018

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

2-ADJ I

Decision Date

09-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 17-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

820

Police Station

GURSAHAIGANJ

Year

2016

Acts & Sections

Electricity(temporary)control Act Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.State

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.vimala

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgementView PDF

    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.

  3. 09-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ I

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Appearance of accused

    ADJ I

  5. 18-Feb-2026

    Appearance of accused

    ADJ I

  6. 16-Feb-2026

    Appearance of accused

    ADJ I

  7. 03-Feb-2026

    Appearance of accused

    ADJ I

  8. 23-Jan-2026

    Appearance of accused

    ADJ I

  9. 10-Dec-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.t.c.ii

  10. 30-Oct-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.t.c.ii

  11. 04-Oct-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.t.c.ii

  12. 22-Sep-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Adj V

  13. 18-Sep-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Adj V

  14. 11-Sep-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Adj V

  15. 02-Sep-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Adj V

  16. 25-Aug-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Adj V

  17. 20-Aug-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Adj V

  18. 18-Aug-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Adj V

  19. 03-Jul-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Adj III

  20. 03-May-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Adj III

  21. 26-Feb-2025

    Appearance of accused

    Adj III

  22. 11-Dec-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Adj III

  23. 18-Sep-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Adj III

  24. 19-Jun-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Adj III

  25. 15-Apr-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.t.c.ii

  26. 22-Feb-2024

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.t.c.ii

  27. 12-Dec-2023

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.t.c.ii

  28. 04-Nov-2023

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.t.c.ii

  29. 11-Oct-2023

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.t.c.ii

  30. 11-Sep-2023

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.t.c.ii

  31. 25-Aug-2023

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.t.c.ii

  32. 21-Jul-2023

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.t.c.ii

  33. 17-Apr-2023

    Appearance of accused

    Adj III

  34. 09-Feb-2023

    Appearance of accused

    ADJ I

  35. 07-Dec-2022

    Appearance of accused

    ADJ I

  36. 13-Sep-2022

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.T.C.I

  37. 17-Jun-2022

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.T.C.I

  38. 24-Mar-2022

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.T.C.I

  39. 04-Jan-2022

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.T.C.I

  40. 11-Oct-2021

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.T.C.I

  41. 16-Aug-2021

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.T.C.I

  42. 07-Jul-2021

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.T.C.I

  43. 03-Jun-2021

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.T.C.I

  44. 28-Apr-2021

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.T.C.I

  45. 09-Mar-2021

    Appearance of accused

    Additional Special Judge(POCSO and Rape Cases)

  46. 02-Jan-2021

    Appearance of accused

    Additional Special Judge(POCSO and Rape Cases)

  47. 25-Nov-2020

    Appearance of accused

    Additional Special Judge(POCSO and Rape Cases)

  48. 12-Oct-2020

    Appearance of accused

    Adj III

  49. 03-Sep-2020

    Appearance of accused

    Adj III

  50. 29-Jul-2020

    Appearance of accused

    Adj III

  51. 15-Jun-2020

    Appearance of accused

    Adj III

  52. 11-May-2020

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.T.C.I

  53. 08-Apr-2020

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.T.C.I

  54. 24-Feb-2020

    Appearance of accused

    Adj V

  55. 25-Nov-2019

    Appearance of accused

    Adj V

  56. 25-Sep-2019

    Appearance of accused

    Adj V

  57. 26-Aug-2019

    Appearance of accused

    Adj V

  58. 11-Jul-2019

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.t.c.ii

  59. 11-Jun-2019

    Appearance of accused

    Adj F.t.c.ii

  60. 05-Apr-2019

    Appearance of accused

    ADJ IV

  61. 28-Jan-2019

    Appearance of accused

    ADJ IV

  62. 22-Dec-2018

    Appearance of accused

    ADJ IV

  63. 26-Nov-2018

    Awaiting services of notices/summons

    ADJ IV

  64. 22-Sep-2018

    Awaiting services of notices/summons

    ADJ IV

  65. 18-Aug-2018

    Awaiting services of notices/summons

    ADJ IV

  66. 13-Jul-2018

    Awaiting services of notices/summons

    Adj III

  67. 11-Jun-2018

    Awaiting services of notices/summons

    Adj III

  68. 28-Apr-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  69. 05-Apr-2018

    Case filed

    Registration No. 80/2018

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case