The State of West Bengal vs TANMAY GHOSH — 94/2021

Case under Electricity Act Section 135(1)(a). Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

Electricity Act

CNR: WBND010058602021

Filing Number

4088/2021

Filing Date

03-Dec-2021

Registration No

94/2021

Registration Date

03-Dec-2021

Court

District and Sessions Judge, Krishnanagar, Nadia

Judge

5-ADJ IV

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 04-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

116

Police Station

KALIGANJ

Year

2021

Acts & Sections

Electricity Act Section 135(1)(a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.The State of West Bengal

    Adv. app

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.TANMAY GHOSH

  2. 2.JHORU MALLICK

  3. 3.HIMU MALLICK

  4. 4.AZID SK

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    JudgmentView PDF

    Court Decision Summary The Special Court (Electricity Act) in Krishnagar, Nadia acquitted all four accused persons (Tanmoy Ghosh, Jhoru Mallick, Azid Sk, and Himu Mallick) of charges under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act for alleged illegal electricity theft through unauthorized connections. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing critical evidentiary gaps: seized materials were not produced in court, seizure lists lacked independent witness signatures despite the incident occurring in accessible STW premises, and ownership of the premises was not established. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 09-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ IV

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

  5. 10-Mar-2026

    Argument / Further Argument

    ADJ IV

  6. 25-Feb-2026

    Argument / Further Argument

    ADJ IV

  7. 16-Feb-2026

    Argument / Further Argument

    ADJ IV

  8. 10-Sep-2025

    Further Evidence

    ADJ IV

  9. 17-Jun-2025

    OrderView PDF

  10. 17-Jun-2025

    Further Evidence

    ADJ IV

  11. 21-Feb-2025

    OrderView PDF

  12. 21-Feb-2025

    Further Evidence

    ADJ IV

  13. 20-Nov-2024

    OrderView PDF

  14. 20-Nov-2024

    Further Evidence

    ADJ IV

  15. 31-Jul-2024

    Further Evidence

    ADJ IV

  16. 30-Jul-2024

    Further Evidence

    ADJ IV

  17. 25-Mar-2024

    Further Evidence

    ADJ IV

  18. 09-Oct-2023

    Further Evidence

    ADJ IV

  19. 07-Oct-2023

    Further Evidence

    ADJ IV

  20. 06-Oct-2023

    Further Evidence

    ADJ IV

  21. 12-Jun-2023

    OrderView PDF

  22. 12-Jun-2023

    Evidence

    ADJ IV

  23. 27-Jan-2023

    OrderView PDF

  24. 27-Jan-2023

    Charge / Plea Hearing

    ADJ IV

  25. 01-Nov-2022

    OrderView PDF

  26. 01-Nov-2022

    Appearance

    ADJ IV

  27. 29-Oct-2022

    OrderView PDF

  28. 29-Oct-2022

    Put Up

    ADJ IV

  29. 06-Jul-2022

    Appearance

    ADJ IV

  30. 26-Apr-2022

    OrderView PDF

  31. 26-Apr-2022

    Appearance

    ADJ IV

  32. 25-Apr-2022

    OrderView PDF

  33. 25-Apr-2022

    Put Up

    ADJ IV

  34. 20-Apr-2022

    Put Up

    ADJ IV

  35. 16-Mar-2022

    OrderView PDF

  36. 16-Mar-2022

    Appearance

    ADJ IV

  37. 14-Mar-2022

    Put Up

    ADJ IV

  38. 03-Dec-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  39. 03-Dec-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 94/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Special Court (Electricity Act) in Krishnagar, Nadia acquitted all four accused persons (Tanmoy Ghosh, Jhoru Mallick, Azid Sk, and Himu Mallick) of charges under Section 135(1)(a) of the Electricity Act for alleged illegal electricity theft through unauthorized connections. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, citing critical evidentiary gaps: seized materials were not produced in court, seizure lists lacked independent witness signatures despite the incident occurring in accessible STW premises, and ownership of the premises was not established. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case