GAURAVBHAI DHIRUBHAI VASAVA BRANCH COLLECTION MANAGER OF SHRI RAM FINANCE LIMITED NETRANG BRANCH vs SAPAN VIRENDRABHAI PATEL Advocate - R T PRAJAPATI — 3131/2023

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 14th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJBH030061452023

Filing Number

3131/2023

Filing Date

17-Jul-2023

Registration No

3131/2023

Registration Date

17-Jul-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, ANKLESVAR

Judge

1-Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

Decision Date

14-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GAURAVBHAI DHIRUBHAI VASAVA BRANCH COLLECTION MANAGER OF SHRI RAM FINANCE LIMITED NETRANG BRANCH

    Adv. N R PANCHAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SAPAN VIRENDRABHAI PATEL Advocate - R T PRAJAPATI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-May-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Case Summary: 3131/2023 Court Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's (Gauravbhai Dhirubhai Vasava, Shri Ram Finance Limited's branch collection manager) application under Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 charging the respondent with dishonoring a check. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offense, including consideration for the check and existence of a debt. Key Reasoning: The court applied the statutory presumption framework under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which create rebuttable presumptions favoring the complainant. However, the burden shifts to the complainant once the accused produces plausible evidence challenging the debt or consideration. The respondent presented a credible defense that the vehicle financed through the loan had been sold, proceeds were deposited elsewhere, and insufficient documentary evidence supported the claimed outstanding debt of approximately ₹25,34,625.54. The court found multiple discrepancies in the complainant's case regarding loan disbursement, vehicle collateral documentation, and reconciliation of account balances, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-May-2026

    Disposed

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  4. 30-Apr-2026

    For Arguement of Complainant

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  5. 09-Apr-2026

    For Arguement of Complainant

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    For Arguement of Complainant

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    For Arguement of Complainant

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  8. 10-Feb-2026

    For Arguement of Complainant

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  9. 29-Jan-2026

    For Arguement of Complainant

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  10. 02-Jan-2026

    For Arguement of Complainant

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  11. 24-Dec-2025

    Order

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  12. 05-Dec-2025

    Order

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  13. 20-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  14. 07-Oct-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  15. 16-Sep-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  16. 01-Sep-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  17. 19-Aug-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  18. 22-Jul-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  19. 30-May-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  20. 28-Apr-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  21. 03-Apr-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  22. 03-Mar-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  23. 14-Feb-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  24. 07-Feb-2025

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  25. 21-Jan-2025

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  26. 10-Dec-2024

    Further Statement

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  27. 02-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  28. 14-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  29. 03-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  30. 16-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  31. 04-Jun-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal Senior CIVIL Judge & Addl. CJM

  32. 30-Apr-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  33. 19-Mar-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  34. 13-Feb-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  35. 02-Jan-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  36. 24-Nov-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  37. 09-Oct-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Addl. Sr. CIVIL Judge & A.C.J.M.

  38. 28-Aug-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  39. 17-Jul-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 3131/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 3131/2023 Court Decision: The court rejected the petitioner's (Gauravbhai Dhirubhai Vasava, Shri Ram Finance Limited's branch collection manager) application under Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 charging the respondent with dishonoring a check. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offense, including consideration for the check and existence of a debt. Key Reasoning: The court applied the statutory presumption framework under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which create rebuttable presumptions favoring the complainant. However, the burden shifts to the complainant once the accused produces plausible evidence challenging the debt or consideration. The respondent presented a credible defense that the vehicle financed through the loan had been sold, proceeds were deposited elsewhere, and insufficient documentary evidence supported the claimed outstanding debt of approximately ₹25,34,625.54. The court found multiple discrepancies in the complainant's case regarding loan disbursement, vehicle collateral documentation, and reconciliation of account balances, warranting acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case