SOLANKI MANZILKUMAR RATILAL vs RATHOD RAJESHKUMAR PRAVINBHAI Advocate - J S OJHA — 19/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415,. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 13th March 2026.
CR A - CRIMINAL APPEAL
CNR: GJMH010001772026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
19/2026
Filing Date
15-01-2026
Registration No
19/2026
Registration Date
15-01-2026
Court
DISTRICT COURT MAHESANA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SOLANKI MANZILKUMAR RATILAL
Adv. A A YADAV
Respondent(s)
RATHOD RAJESHKUMAR PRAVINBHAI Advocate - J S OJHA
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. B G PATEL
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
FINAL HEARING
FINAL HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 12-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 07-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 05-03-2026 | FINAL HEARING | |
| 25-02-2026 | FINAL HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Sessions Judge dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal against his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court confirmed the trial court's findings that the accused obtained a ₹2,00,000 hand loan, issued a cheque that bounced due to insufficient funds, and failed to make payment despite receiving a legal demand notice. The court upheld the conviction and sentence of one-year imprisonment with ₹2,00,000 compensation, noting the accused deliberately absented himself from trial proceedings despite ample opportunities to cross-examine the complainant and present his defense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Sessions Judge dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal against his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court confirmed the trial court's findings that the accused obtained a ₹2,00,000 hand loan, issued a cheque that bounced due to insufficient funds, and failed to make payment despite receiving a legal demand notice. The court upheld the conviction and sentence of one-year imprisonment with ₹2,00,000 compensation, noting the accused deliberately absented himself from trial proceedings despite ample opportunities to cross-examine the complainant and present his defense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts