State vs Shyamkant — 856/2024
Case under The Uttar Pradesh Electricity Act,2003 Section 138(1)(b). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 04th April 2026.
Sessions Case
CNR: UPKJ010035022024
e-Filing Number
22-07-2024
Filing Number
3223/2024
Filing Date
20-Jul-2024
Registration No
856/2024
Registration Date
20-Jul-2024
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
2-ADJ I
Decision Date
04-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Last updated 27-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
1444
Police Station
ANTI POWER THEFT THANA KANNAUJ
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.State
Respondent(s)
-
1.Shyamkant
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
04-Apr-2026
Copy of JudgementView PDF
Case Summary: State v. Shyamkant (856/2024) The court acquitted Shyamkant of charges under Section 138(1)(B) of the Electricity Act 2003 for alleged electricity theft. The prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the crime—specifically, the quantum of electricity stolen and financial loss caused—and presented insufficient evidence of meter tampering through proper technical investigation. Notably, the accused had paid all outstanding electricity dues (₹26,161) before trial, further undermining the prosecution case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-Apr-2026
Disposed
ADJ I
-
12-Mar-2026
For Judgment
ADJ I
-
25-Feb-2026
Hearing
ADJ I
-
20-Feb-2026
Hearing
ADJ I
-
20-Jan-2026
Hearing
ADJ I
-
28-Nov-2025
Hearing
Adj F.t.c.ii
-
23-Sep-2025
Hearing
Adj V
-
24-Jul-2025
Hearing
Adj V
-
23-May-2025
Hearing
Adj III
-
24-Mar-2025
Hearing
Adj III
-
14-Jan-2025
Hearing
Adj III
-
04-Nov-2024
Hearing
Adj III
-
30-Aug-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
20-Jul-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 856/2024
Case Summary: State v. Shyamkant (856/2024) The court acquitted Shyamkant of charges under Section 138(1)(B) of the Electricity Act 2003 for alleged electricity theft. The prosecution failed to prove essential elements of the crime—specifically, the quantum of electricity stolen and financial loss caused—and presented insufficient evidence of meter tampering through proper technical investigation. Notably, the accused had paid all outstanding electricity dues (₹26,161) before trial, further undermining the prosecution case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts