ANKURKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI PATEL vs SANDIPBHAI DAYASHANKAR MISHRA — 239/2025

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION on 16th March 2026.

CC - CRIMINAL CASE

CNR: GJKH160003002025

Case disposed

Filing Number

239/2025

Filing Date

04-07-2025

Registration No

239/2025

Registration Date

04-07-2025

Court

TALUKA COURT, VASO

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

Decision Date

16th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--JUDGMENT BY CONVICTION

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

ANKURKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI PATEL

Adv. M B MAHIDA

Respondent(s)

SANDIPBHAI DAYASHANKAR MISHRA

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C

16-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

FINAL ARGUMENTS

27-02-2026

PLEA

13-02-2026

PLEA

13-01-2026

PROCESS TO ACCUSED

Final Orders / Judgements

16-03-2026
JUDEGEMENT

Case Summary: C.C.No. 239/2025 Court Decision: The court convicted the accused, Sandipbhai Dayashankar Mishra, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring a cheque of ₹1,40,000. The accused is sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and ordered to pay ₹1,00,000 as compensation to the petitioner, with additional fine if imprisonment is not served. Key Reasoning: The petitioner loaned money to the accused, who issued a cheque as security. The cheque was dishonored despite proper notice. The court found the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 that the cheque was issued for debt discharge, and the accused provided no valid defense despite opportunity to do so. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: C.C.No. 239/2025 Court Decision: The court convicted the accused, Sandipbhai Dayashankar Mishra, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring a cheque of ₹1,40,000. The accused is sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and ordered to pay ₹1,00,000 as compensation to the petitioner, with additional fine if imprisonment is not served. Key Reasoning: The petitioner loaned money to the accused, who issued a cheque as security. The cheque was dishonored despite proper notice. The court found the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 that the cheque was issued for debt discharge, and the accused provided no valid defense despite opportunity to do so. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

TALUKA COURT, VASO All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case