MAHETA RESHMABEN ALPESHKUMAR vs DIVYANG VINODBHAI POKAR Advocate - V M PATEL — 902/2023

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 18th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJAR020011232023

Filing Number

902/2023

Filing Date

13-Apr-2023

Registration No

902/2023

Registration Date

13-Apr-2023

Court

CIVIL COURT, MODASA

Judge

1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

18-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 29-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MAHETA RESHMABEN ALPESHKUMAR

    Adv. D R MEHTA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DIVYANG VINODBHAI POKAR Advocate - V M PATEL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-May-2026

    Judegement

    CASE SUMMARY: 902/2023 Case Title: Maheta Reshmaben Alpeshkumar v. Divyang Vinodbhai Pokar Court: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Modasa Decision Date: 18/05/2026 --- DECISION The accused, Divyang Vinodbhai Pokar, has been acquitted of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. --- KEY FINDINGS 1. Lack of Legally Enforceable Debt: The complainant failed to establish a legally enforceable debt. The cheque in question (Rs. 9,70,000/-) was allegedly given as security for a loan, not as discharge of an existing liability. 2. Material Alterations & Cheque Status: The cheque bore signs of material alterations and potential misuse. The complainant had filled in amounts and dates on what may have been a blank cheque without proper consent from the accused. 3. Insufficient Documentary Evidence: The complainant provided no books of accounts, source of funds documentation, or contemporaneous records proving financial capacity to advance Rs. 9,70,000/- in cash. Income tax returns showed reported income but no accounting for large cash transactions allegedly made. 4. Compromised Witness Credibility: The complainant (and his wife as witness) were interested parties with inconsistencies in their testimonies regarding dates, amounts, and circumstances of money transfers. 5. Pre-existing Part Payment: Evidence suggested partial payments had already been made, which would negate the application of Section 138 NIA. 6. Rebuttable Presumption: The accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 NIA through cross-examination and available documentary evidence. --- CONCLUSION The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a legally recoverable debt existed at the time the cheque was issued, making the conviction unsustainable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-May-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 15-May-2026

    Judgement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 08-May-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 29-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 23-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 16-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 08-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  10. 02-Apr-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  11. 24-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  12. 05-Mar-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  13. 09-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  14. 04-Feb-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  15. 13-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  16. 03-Jan-2026

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  17. 10-Dec-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  18. 20-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  19. 03-Oct-2025

    Evidence Of Defence

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  20. 08-Sep-2025

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  21. 06-Aug-2025

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  22. 04-Aug-2025

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  23. 15-Jul-2025

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  24. 07-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  25. 19-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  26. 10-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  27. 02-May-2025

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  28. 07-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  29. 04-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  30. 27-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Complainant

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  31. 02-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  32. 12-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  33. 25-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  34. 13-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  35. 08-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  36. 13-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  37. 02-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  38. 06-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  39. 12-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  40. 17-May-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  41. 02-Apr-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  42. 05-Mar-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  43. 31-Jan-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  44. 18-Dec-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  45. 29-Nov-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  46. 19-Oct-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  47. 15-Sep-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  48. 04-Aug-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  49. 28-Jun-2023

    Summons - Notice

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  50. 01-Jun-2023

    Summons - Notice

    Chief Judicial Magistrate & Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge

  51. 08-May-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  52. 13-Apr-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 902/2023

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: 902/2023 Case Title: Maheta Reshmaben Alpeshkumar v. Divyang Vinodbhai Pokar Court: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Modasa Decision Date: 18/05/2026 --- DECISION The accused, Divyang Vinodbhai Pokar, has been acquitted of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. --- KEY FINDINGS 1. Lack of Legally Enforceable Debt: The complainant failed to establish a legally enforceable debt. The cheque in question (Rs. 9,70,000/-) was allegedly given as security for a loan, not as discharge of an existing liability. 2. Material Alterations & Cheque Status: The cheque bore signs of material alterations and potential misuse. The complainant had filled in amounts and dates on what may have been a blank cheque without proper consent from the accused. 3. Insufficient Documentary Evidence: The complainant provided no books of accounts, source of funds documentation, or contemporaneous records proving financial capacity to advance Rs. 9,70,000/- in cash. Income tax returns showed reported income but no accounting for large cash transactions allegedly made. 4. Compromised Witness Credibility: The complainant (and his wife as witness) were interested parties with inconsistencies in their testimonies regarding dates, amounts, and circumstances of money transfers. 5. Pre-existing Part Payment: Evidence suggested partial payments had already been made, which would negate the application of Section 138 NIA. 6. Rebuttable Presumption: The accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 NIA through cross-examination and available documentary evidence. --- CONCLUSION The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a legally recoverable debt existed at the time the cheque was issued, making the conviction unsustainable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case