Government of Gujarat vs YASHPALBHAI HASMUKHBHAI SHIYAL Advocate - M Y PATEL — 937/2023
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 408,203,120(B). Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 30th March 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJBH050010132023
Filing Number
937/2023
Filing Date
24-03-2023
Registration No
937/2023
Registration Date
24-03-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, VAGRA
Judge
2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
883
Police Station
DAHEJ POLICE STATION - BHARUCH DISTRICT
Year
2022
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Respondent(s)
YASHPALBHAI HASMUKHBHAI SHIYAL Advocate - M Y PATEL
PAVANSHNG OMPRAKASHSING RANA
BHEMJIBHAI @ BHARATBHAI LADHABHAI PATEL
Adv. R V MODI
Hearing History
Judge: 2-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FRAMING OF CHARGE
FRAMING OF CHARGE
PROCESS TO ACCUSED
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 27-02-2026 | FRAMING OF CHARGE |
| 13-02-2026 | FRAMING OF CHARGE |
| 29-01-2026 | PROCESS TO ACCUSED |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 937/2023 Court Decision: The court acquitted all three accused under IPC sections 420 (cheating), 409 (criminal breach of trust), and 203 (giving false evidence). The prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The complainant's own testimony was inconsistent and contradictory. The prosecution could not prove that the accused criminally conspired to misappropriate ₹4,12,000 from the company or provide false information to police. The evidence on record was insufficient to connect the accused to the alleged fraudulent scheme, and the complainant's statement shifted regarding whether the amount was actually deposited into the company account. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 937/2023 Court Decision: The court acquitted all three accused under IPC sections 420 (cheating), 409 (criminal breach of trust), and 203 (giving false evidence). The prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Key Reasoning: The complainant's own testimony was inconsistent and contradictory. The prosecution could not prove that the accused criminally conspired to misappropriate ₹4,12,000 from the company or provide false information to police. The evidence on record was insufficient to connect the accused to the alleged fraudulent scheme, and the complainant's statement shifted regarding whether the amount was actually deposited into the company account. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts