Naredrabhai Kababhai Rakholiya vs Vipulbhai Khodabhai Chovatiya (Of Vishavam Info.Partner) Advocate - J G VACHHANI, D N APARNATHI — 258/2023
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 12th May 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJJN110002862023
Filing Number
258/2023
Filing Date
21-03-2023
Registration No
258/2023
Registration Date
21-03-2023
Court
TALUKA COURT, BHESAN
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Decision Date
12th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Naredrabhai Kababhai Rakholiya
Adv. S R DODIYA
Respondent(s)
Vipulbhai Khodabhai Chovatiya (Of Vishavam Info.Partner) Advocate - J G VACHHANI, D N APARNATHI
Piyushbhai Ukabhai Godhani
Adv. J G VACHHANI,D N APARNATHI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 30-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 20-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 30-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary of Case 258/2023 The court acquitted the accused in this Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 (cheque dishonour) case. The complainant failed to establish that a legally enforceable debt existed when the cheque was issued. Although Section 139 presumes the cheque was for discharging a debt, the complainant must still prove the debt's existence and legal enforceability. Here, the complainant provided no documentary evidence (account statements, loan agreements, or acknowledgments) to demonstrate the outstanding amount or debt details, rendering the presumption unreliable. The accused successfully rebutted it by raising probable defence regarding non-existence of legally recoverable debt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 258/2023 The court acquitted the accused in this Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 (cheque dishonour) case. The complainant failed to establish that a legally enforceable debt existed when the cheque was issued. Although Section 139 presumes the cheque was for discharging a debt, the complainant must still prove the debt's existence and legal enforceability. Here, the complainant provided no documentary evidence (account statements, loan agreements, or acknowledgments) to demonstrate the outstanding amount or debt details, rendering the presumption unreliable. The accused successfully rebutted it by raising probable defence regarding non-existence of legally recoverable debt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts