VACHCHHRAJ PETROLEUM BEHALF PROPRIETOR OF - RAJSHIBHAI RANABHAI CHANCHIYA vs MAMADBHAI KAMUBHAI LOTHIYA Advocate - A B PATEL — 410/2024

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 01st April 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJDW050006152024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

410/2024

Filing Date

04-04-2024

Registration No

410/2024

Registration Date

04-04-2024

Court

TALUKA COURT, DWARKA

Judge

1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

Decision Date

01st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Acts & Sections

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 Section 138,

Petitioner(s)

VACHCHHRAJ PETROLEUM BEHALF PROPRIETOR OF - RAJSHIBHAI RANABHAI CHANCHIYA

Adv. M H SOLANKI

Respondent(s)

MAMADBHAI KAMUBHAI LOTHIYA Advocate - A B PATEL

Hearing History

Judge: 1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.

01-04-2026

Disposed

07-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

07-02-2026

JUDGEMENT

31-01-2026

EVIDENCE OF DEFENCE

17-01-2026

EVIDENCE OF DEFENCE

Final Orders / Judgements

01-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Court Decision Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Dwarka acquitted the accused under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138, finding that the complainant failed to prove the cheque was issued for discharging a legally existing debt. The court determined that the cheque (Rs. 4,00,000) was merely security for potential future liabilities rather than payment of an actual debt, as the complainant had not provided documentary evidence of goods supplied on credit before the cheque was issued. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Dwarka acquitted the accused under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138, finding that the complainant failed to prove the cheque was issued for discharging a legally existing debt. The court determined that the cheque (Rs. 4,00,000) was merely security for potential future liabilities rather than payment of an actual debt, as the complainant had not provided documentary evidence of goods supplied on credit before the cheque was issued. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, DWARKA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case