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.
Electricity Act
CNR: WBND010058602021
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
4088/2021
Filing Date
03-12-2021
Registration No
94/2021
Registration Date
03-12-2021
Court
District and Sessions Judge, Krishnanagar, Nadia
Judge
5-ADJ IV
Decision Date
09th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
116
Police Station
KALIGANJ
Year
2021
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
The State of West Bengal
Adv. app
Respondent(s)
TANMAY GHOSH
JHORU MALLICK
HIMU MALLICK
AZID SK
Hearing History
Judge: 5-ADJ IV
Disposed
Argument / Further Argument
Argument / Further Argument
Argument / Further Argument
Further Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Argument / Further Argument | |
| 25-02-2026 | Argument / Further Argument | |
| 16-02-2026 | Argument / Further Argument | |
| 10-09-2025 | Further Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
Interim Orders
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts