Govt of West Bengal vs KHOKAN MOLLA — 1639/2014
Status: Executionof W.A/WPA. Next hearing: 01st September 2026.
Electricity Act
CNR: WBNP010002742004
Next Hearing
01st September 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
5606/2014
Filing Date
16-06-2004
Registration No
1639/2014
Registration Date
16-06-2004
Court
District and Sessions Judge, Barasat, North 24 Parganas
Judge
5-ADJ IV
Petitioner(s)
Govt of West Bengal
Respondent(s)
KHOKAN MOLLA
Hearing History
Judge: 5-ADJ IV
Executionof W.A/WPA
Executionof W.A/WPA
Executionof W.A/WPA
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Executionof W.A/WPA | |
| 14-06-2024 | Executionof W.A/WPA | |
| 29-11-2022 | Executionof W.A/WPA | |
| 17-09-2022 | Evidence | |
| 24-08-2022 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary This is a witness deposition record in an electricity theft case (Spl.(Elec.) No.1639/14) before the Special Court under the Electricity Act, Barasat, dated 5th December 2016. Witness Debranjan Ghosh testified that on 02.11.2001, he inspected premises in Village Podra and found accused Khokan Molla illegally tapping electricity from an LT line; the illegal connection was disconnected and seized. However, the witness critically failed to identify the accused in the courtroom, and during cross-examination, admitted he had no documentary proof that the accused was the owner or occupier of the inspected premises. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is a witness deposition record in an electricity theft case (Spl.(Elec.) No.1639/14) before the Special Court under the Electricity Act, Barasat, dated 5th December 2016. Witness Debranjan Ghosh testified that on 02.11.2001, he inspected premises in Village Podra and found accused Khokan Molla illegally tapping electricity from an LT line; the illegal connection was disconnected and seized. However, the witness critically failed to identify the accused in the courtroom, and during cross-examination, admitted he had no documentary proof that the accused was the owner or occupier of the inspected premises. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts