State vs Dharmpal — 712/2024
Case under The Uttar Pradesh Electricity Act,2003 Section 138(1)(b). Disposed: Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: UPKJ010031312024
e-Filing Number
01-07-2024
Filing Number
2880/2024
Filing Date
01-07-2024
Registration No
712/2024
Registration Date
03-07-2024
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
2-ADJ I
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALAT
FIR Details
FIR Number
172
Police Station
ANTI POWER THEFT THANA KANNAUJ
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State
Respondent(s)
Dharmpal
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ADJ I
Disposed
For appearance of parties/advocates
For appearance of parties/advocates
For appearance of parties/advocates
For appearance of parties/advocates
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | For appearance of parties/advocates | |
| 13-02-2026 | For appearance of parties/advocates | |
| 27-01-2026 | For appearance of parties/advocates | |
| 14-01-2026 | For appearance of parties/advocates |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The court acquitted accused Dharampal under Section 152(3) of the Electricity Act 2003, finding the electricity theft offense to be "compoundable" (capable of settlement). The decision was based on the fact that Dharampal had paid all outstanding electricity dues to the department, and the supervising engineer confirmed no objection to case closure. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent establishing that offenses under Section 135 (electricity theft involving meter damage) are compoundable in nature, and therefore Section 152 provisions apply. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court acquitted accused Dharampal under Section 152(3) of the Electricity Act 2003, finding the electricity theft offense to be "compoundable" (capable of settlement). The decision was based on the fact that Dharampal had paid all outstanding electricity dues to the department, and the supervising engineer confirmed no objection to case closure. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent establishing that offenses under Section 135 (electricity theft involving meter damage) are compoundable in nature, and therefore Section 152 provisions apply. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts