DINESHBHAI NARSINGBHAI PATEL vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - B G PATEL — 36/2026
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415,. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 11th March 2026.
CR A - CRIMINAL APPEAL
CNR: GJMH010002982026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
36/2026
Filing Date
27-01-2026
Registration No
36/2026
Registration Date
27-01-2026
Court
DISTRICT COURT MAHESANA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
DINESHBHAI NARSINGBHAI PATEL
Adv. P C CHAVDA
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - B G PATEL
KALPESH R RAJGOR-SHRI RAM FINANCE LTD.
Adv. H B PRAJAPATI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FOR R&P
FOR R&P
FOR R&P
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 27-02-2026 | FOR R&P | |
| 26-02-2026 | FOR R&P | |
| 29-01-2026 | FOR R&P |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Sessions Judge of Mahesana dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction of Dineshbhai Patel under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that Patel obtained a ₹4,00,000 business loan from Shri Ram Finance Ltd., issued a cheque for ₹3,00,000 for final settlement, which was dishonored due to "Account Closed," and failed to respond to a legal demand notice. The court upheld the one-year imprisonment sentence and ₹3,00,000 compensation order, finding all statutory requirements satisfied and the accused's failure to mount any defense conclusive of guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Sessions Judge of Mahesana dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction of Dineshbhai Patel under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that Patel obtained a ₹4,00,000 business loan from Shri Ram Finance Ltd., issued a cheque for ₹3,00,000 for final settlement, which was dishonored due to "Account Closed," and failed to respond to a legal demand notice. The court upheld the one-year imprisonment sentence and ₹3,00,000 compensation order, finding all statutory requirements satisfied and the accused's failure to mount any defense conclusive of guilt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts