VIRABHAI PARBAT VALA vs DILIPBHAI KARSAN RAM Advocate - R B PANDIT — 78/2025

Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415,. Disposed: Contested--JUDGEMENT on 01st April 2026.

CR A - CRIMINAL APPEAL

CNR: GJGS010006052025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

78/2025

Filing Date

28-05-2025

Registration No

78/2025

Registration Date

28-05-2025

Court

District Court, Veraval

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Decision Date

01st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGEMENT

Acts & Sections

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 415,
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 Section 138,

Petitioner(s)

VIRABHAI PARBAT VALA

Adv. M H VALA

Respondent(s)

DILIPBHAI KARSAN RAM Advocate - R B PANDIT

State of Gujarat

Adv. K D VALA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

01-04-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

24-02-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

12-02-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

22-01-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

01-04-2026
ORDER

The District and Sessions Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, finding that the complainant proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt of Rs. 1,80,000 through the dishonored cheques and supporting documentary evidence. The court rejected the appellant's defense that the cheques were mere security, ruling that he failed to rebut the statutory presumption, and confirmed the sentence of 8 months simple imprisonment and compensation payment of Rs. 1,80,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The District and Sessions Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, finding that the complainant proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt of Rs. 1,80,000 through the dishonored cheques and supporting documentary evidence. The court rejected the appellant's defense that the cheques were mere security, ruling that he failed to rebut the statutory presumption, and confirmed the sentence of 8 months simple imprisonment and compensation payment of Rs. 1,80,000. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

District Court, Veraval All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case