PATEL PRAVINBHAI RAMABHAI vs DESAI ALPESHKUMAR BALDEVBHAI Advocate - M G CHAUDHARI — 655/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415,. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 02nd April 2026.
CR A - CRIMINAL APPEAL
CNR: GJMH010041462025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
656/2025
Filing Date
22-12-2025
Registration No
655/2025
Registration Date
22-12-2025
Court
DISTRICT COURT MAHESANA
Judge
5-4th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PATEL PRAVINBHAI RAMABHAI
Adv. R M ZALA
Respondent(s)
DESAI ALPESHKUMAR BALDEVBHAI Advocate - M G CHAUDHARI
THE STATE OF GUJARAT
Adv. R K JOSHI
Hearing History
Judge: 5-4th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
URGENT HEARING
PROCESS TO RESPONDENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 01-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 10-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 24-02-2026 | URGENT HEARING | |
| 23-01-2026 | PROCESS TO RESPONDENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The 4th Additional Sessions Judge at Mahesana dismissed the criminal appeal and confirmed the conviction of Patel Pravinbhai Ramabhai under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court found that the accused issued a cheque of Rs. 10,00,000 to discharge a legally enforceable debt, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds, and the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 138-139 of the Act by not providing cogent evidence to prove the cheque was merely for security purposes or misused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The 4th Additional Sessions Judge at Mahesana dismissed the criminal appeal and confirmed the conviction of Patel Pravinbhai Ramabhai under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court found that the accused issued a cheque of Rs. 10,00,000 to discharge a legally enforceable debt, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds, and the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 138-139 of the Act by not providing cogent evidence to prove the cheque was merely for security purposes or misused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts