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

Case disposed

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

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

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

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

02-04-2026
JUDEGEMENT

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

DISTRICT COURT MAHESANA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case