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

Case disposed

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

THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 Section 415,
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 Section 138,

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

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

21-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

DISTRICT COURT MAHESANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case