Narendra Kababhai Rakholiya vs Partnar of Vishavam Info ( — 445/2023

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,142. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJJN110005372023

Filing Number

445/2023

Filing Date

19-Aug-2023

Registration No

445/2023

Registration Date

19-Aug-2023

Court

TALUKA COURT, BHESAN

Judge

1-Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL

Last updated 07-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,142

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Narendra Kababhai Rakholiya

    Adv. V V RANVA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Partnar of Vishavam Info (

  2. 2.Vipulbhai Khodabhai Chovatiya(Permanently exempted) Advocate - D N APARNATHI

  3. 3.Shitalben Vipulbhai Chovatiya(Permanently exempted)

    Adv. D N APARNATHI,J G VACHHANI

  4. 4.Piyushbhai Ukabahi Chovatiya(Permanently exempted)

    Adv. D N APARNATHI,J G VACHHANI

  5. 5.Chandrikaben Piyushbhai Chovatiya(Permanently exempted)

    Adv. D N APARNATHI,J G VACHHANI

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    Judegement

    Summary Case: Criminal Case No. 445/2023, J.M.F.C. Court, Bhesan Court's Decision: The court acquitted all accused persons named in the case—the representatives of Vishavam Info (a partnership enterprise) and other named individuals—of charges under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused were charged with issuing a check for ₹2,00,000 that bounced due to insufficient funds. Key Reasoning: The court found that the complainant (petitioner) failed to establish a legally enforceable debt owed by the accused at the time the check was issued. While statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act normally favor the check holder, these presumptions are rebuttable. The accused successfully raised probable defense showing the underlying liability was time-barred under the Limitation Act, and the complainant produced no documentary evidence (account statements, loan agreements, or acknowledgments) proving an outstanding debt on the check's issue date. Consequently, the presumption stood rebutted, and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-May-2026

    Disposed

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  4. 30-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  5. 20-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  6. 13-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  7. 30-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  8. 13-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  9. 28-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  10. 09-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  11. 22-Jan-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  12. 05-Jan-2026

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  13. 20-Dec-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  14. 04-Dec-2025

    Judgement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  15. 20-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  16. 06-Nov-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  17. 17-Oct-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  18. 14-Oct-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  19. 09-Oct-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  20. 06-Oct-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  21. 23-Sep-2025

    Final Arguments

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  22. 16-Sep-2025

    Further Statement

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  23. 12-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  24. 08-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  25. 04-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  26. 01-Sep-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  27. 25-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  28. 18-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  29. 07-Aug-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  30. 28-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  31. 19-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  32. 14-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  33. 08-Jul-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  34. 17-Jun-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  35. 13-May-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  36. 17-Apr-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  37. 13-Mar-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  38. 13-Feb-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  39. 16-Jan-2025

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  40. 19-Dec-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  41. 28-Nov-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  42. 10-Oct-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  43. 05-Sep-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  44. 16-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  45. 02-Aug-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  46. 05-Jul-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  47. 21-Jun-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  48. 07-Jun-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  49. 23-May-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  50. 30-Apr-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  51. 26-Mar-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  52. 19-Mar-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  53. 28-Feb-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  54. 19-Feb-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  55. 18-Jan-2024

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  56. 28-Dec-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  57. 14-Dec-2023

    Evidence Of Prosecution

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  58. 10-Nov-2023

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  59. 11-Oct-2023

    Warrant Of Arrest

    Principal CIVIL Judge & J.M.F.C

  60. 15-Sep-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  61. 19-Aug-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 445/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary Case: Criminal Case No. 445/2023, J.M.F.C. Court, Bhesan Court's Decision: The court acquitted all accused persons named in the case—the representatives of Vishavam Info (a partnership enterprise) and other named individuals—of charges under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused were charged with issuing a check for ₹2,00,000 that bounced due to insufficient funds. Key Reasoning: The court found that the complainant (petitioner) failed to establish a legally enforceable debt owed by the accused at the time the check was issued. While statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act normally favor the check holder, these presumptions are rebuttable. The accused successfully raised probable defense showing the underlying liability was time-barred under the Limitation Act, and the complainant produced no documentary evidence (account statements, loan agreements, or acknowledgments) proving an outstanding debt on the check's issue date. Consequently, the presumption stood rebutted, and the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case