NIMESH AGRAWAL PROPRIETOR OF HARY INDUSTRIES vs SHREEJI ENTERPRISE CHINTAN H GANDHI Advocate - A P MEHTA — 89/2024
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374. Status: Final Hearing. Next hearing: 19th May 2026.
CR A - CRIMINAL APPEAL
CNR: GJAH010037372024
Filing Number
89/2024
Filing Date
02-May-2024
Registration No
89/2024
Registration Date
02-May-2024
Court
Ahmedabad District
Judge
4-9th Addl District Judge
Last updated 15-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.NIMESH AGRAWAL PROPRIETOR OF HARY INDUSTRIES
Adv. S D BHAVSAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.SHREEJI ENTERPRISE CHINTAN H GANDHI Advocate - A P MEHTA
-
2.THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. P M TRIVEDI
Case History
-
19-May-2026
Next hearingPending
-
04-May-2026
Final Hearing
9th Addl District Judge
-
03-Apr-2026
Final Hearing
9th Addl District Judge
-
30-Mar-2026
Final Hearing
9th Addl District Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Final Hearing
9th Addl District Judge
-
11-Feb-2026
Final Hearing
9th Addl District Judge
-
04-Feb-2026
OrderView PDF
Case Summary Criminal Appeal No. 89/2024 - Application Dismissed The court dismissed the complainant's application seeking permission to produce a Section 65(B) Evidence Act certificate at the appellate stage of a Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act case. The court held that the complainant had ample opportunity to file the certificate during trial (2018-2024) but failed to do so, and attempting to fill this gap at the appellate stage—especially after the accused raised the issue—was impermissible under law. Following Supreme Court precedent (*Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat*), additional evidence can only be admitted if the party exercised due diligence or facts emerged later; mere negligence cannot justify appellate correction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
04-Feb-2026
Final Hearing
9th Addl District Judge
-
22-Jan-2026
Final Hearing
9th Addl District Judge
-
03-Jan-2026
Final Hearing
10th Addl District Judge
-
20-Dec-2025
Final Hearing
10th Addl District Judge
-
15-Nov-2025
Final Hearing
10th Addl District Judge
-
10-Oct-2025
Final Hearing
10th Addl District Judge
-
20-Sep-2025
Final Hearing
10th Addl District Judge
-
30-Aug-2025
Final Hearing
10th Addl District Judge
-
02-Aug-2025
Final Hearing
10th Addl District Judge
-
15-Jul-2025
Final Hearing
10th Addl District Judge
-
11-Jul-2025
Final Hearing
10th Addl District Judge
-
03-Jul-2025
Final Hearing
10th Addl District Judge
-
10-Jun-2025
Final Hearing
5th Addl District Judge
-
14-May-2025
Final Hearing
5th Addl District Judge
-
03-Apr-2025
Final Hearing
5th Addl District Judge
-
01-Mar-2025
Final Hearing
5th Addl District Judge
-
13-Feb-2025
Final Hearing
5th Addl District Judge
-
23-Dec-2024
Final Hearing
5th Addl District Judge
-
18-Nov-2024
Final Hearing
5th Addl District Judge
-
07-Oct-2024
Final Hearing
5th Addl District Judge
-
12-Sep-2024
Final Hearing
5th Addl District Judge
-
29-Aug-2024
For R&P
5th Addl District Judge
-
24-Jul-2024
Process To Respondents
5th Addl District Judge
-
03-Jul-2024
Process To Respondents
5th Addl District Judge
-
05-Jun-2024
Process To Respondents
6th Addl District Judge
-
22-May-2024
Process To Respondents
7th Addl District Judge
-
04-May-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-May-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 89/2024
Case Summary Criminal Appeal No. 89/2024 - Application Dismissed The court dismissed the complainant's application seeking permission to produce a Section 65(B) Evidence Act certificate at the appellate stage of a Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act case. The court held that the complainant had ample opportunity to file the certificate during trial (2018-2024) but failed to do so, and attempting to fill this gap at the appellate stage—especially after the accused raised the issue—was impermissible under law. Following Supreme Court precedent (*Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat*), additional evidence can only be admitted if the party exercised due diligence or facts emerged later; mere negligence cannot justify appellate correction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts