AKSHAY BHIKHABHAI JOSHI vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - P K DAVE — 17/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415,. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 21st April 2026.
CR A - CRIMINAL APPEAL
CNR: GJMH010001312026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
17/2026
Filing Date
09-01-2026
Registration No
17/2026
Registration Date
09-01-2026
Court
DISTRICT COURT MAHESANA
Judge
5-4th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
21st April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
AKSHAY BHIKHABHAI JOSHI
Adv. M J PATEL
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - P K DAVE
PATEL TARUNKUMAR RAJESHBHAI
Adv. V M GOSWAMI
Hearing History
Judge: 5-4th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
URGENT HEARING
URGENT HEARING
URGENT HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 09-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 02-04-2026 | URGENT HEARING | |
| 10-03-2026 | URGENT HEARING | |
| 24-02-2026 | URGENT HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana dismissed Akshay Joshi's appeal and confirmed his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonored cheque for Rs. 1,50,000. The court held that the complainant sufficiently proved the legally enforceable debt through documentary evidence (original cheque, return memo, statutory notice, and postal receipt), and the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act, having neither replied to the demand notice nor produced any credible evidence denying the transaction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Mahesana dismissed Akshay Joshi's appeal and confirmed his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonored cheque for Rs. 1,50,000. The court held that the complainant sufficiently proved the legally enforceable debt through documentary evidence (original cheque, return memo, statutory notice, and postal receipt), and the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act, having neither replied to the demand notice nor produced any credible evidence denying the transaction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts