✦ Bombay High Court · 18 Jul 2009

Ladda v. The State of Maharashtra

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

Judgment

#1. Heard learned Advocate for the Appellant. This is the appeal challenging the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for one year and fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment (S.I.)for three months. The appellant is also directed to pay damages to the original complainant i.e. BEST Undertaking an amount of Rs. 2 11,35,956/- as damages towards use of electricity by unauthorized means. In the present appeal, BEST Undertaking is not made as the Respondent. The appellant to make necessary amendment to add the BEST Undertaking as party respondent No.2 in the appeal as well as in the application. After carrying out necessary amendment, issue notice to the said newly added respondent No.2 returnable in two weeks. In the mean time, the interim bail granted by the convicting Special Court to continue till the next date. Matter to stand over for two weeks for admission of the appeal after hearing BEST undertaking.

#2. The learned A.P.P. Appearing for the State waives service.

#3. Matter to appear on board after two weeks. A.R.JOSHI,J. 3

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Electricity Act, 2003 — s. 135.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 18 Jul 2009. The bench was A R JOSHI.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Application No. 790 of 2009). ← Search more judgments