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
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
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.
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE OF DEFENCE
EVIDENCE OF DEFENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts