GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT vs NIGAM MAHENDRA THAKAR(Absconding) — 82/2013
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 120B,407. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 12th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJM030001272013
Filing Number
82/2013
Filing Date
28-03-2013
Registration No
82/2013
Registration Date
28-03-2013
Court
TALUKA COURT, LALPUR
Judge
3-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Decision Date
12th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
67
Police Station
MEGHPAR POLICE STATION - JAMNAGAR DISTRICT
Year
2011
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
NIGAM MAHENDRA THAKAR(Absconding)
SUBHASH HIRALA PANCHAL(Absconding)
BHARAT BUDRARAM SAGTAJI(Absconding)
DIVYARAJSHIH NARENDRASHIH RATHOD(Absconding)
Hearing History
Judge: 3-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 21-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 16-03-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 03-02-2026 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
| 29-12-2025 | EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: FIR 82/2013 Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Lalpur acquitted all four accused persons (Nigam Mahendra Thakar, Subhash Hirala Panchal, Bharat Budram Sagtaji, and Divyraj Nrendrasingh Rahod) of charges under IPC Sections 407 and 120(B) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused misappropriated goods entrusted to them or engaged in criminal conspiracy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: FIR 82/2013 Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Lalpur acquitted all four accused persons (Nigam Mahendra Thakar, Subhash Hirala Panchal, Bharat Budram Sagtaji, and Divyraj Nrendrasingh Rahod) of charges under IPC Sections 407 and 120(B) due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused misappropriated goods entrusted to them or engaged in criminal conspiracy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts