BHANGI MANOJBHAI KANTIBHAI vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - B G PATEL — 662/2025
Case under The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 415,. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 07th March 2026.
CR A - CRIMINAL APPEAL
CNR: GJMH010041852025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
663/2025
Filing Date
26-12-2025
Registration No
662/2025
Registration Date
26-12-2025
Court
DISTRICT COURT MAHESANA
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
07th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
BHANGI MANOJBHAI KANTIBHAI
Adv. T N BAROT
Respondent(s)
THE STATE OF GUJARAT Advocate - B G PATEL
RAVAL AJAYKUMAR RAMESHBHAI
Adv. S M KOTAI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FINAL HEARING
FINAL HEARING
FINAL HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 05-03-2026 | FINAL HEARING | |
| 03-03-2026 | FINAL HEARING | |
| 02-03-2026 | FINAL HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Sessions Judge at Mahesana dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the conviction of Bhangi Manojbhai Kantibhai under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 50,000 as repayment for a hand loan, which was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds, and despite receiving a legal demand notice, failed to pay the amount. The appellate court confirmed the one-year imprisonment sentence and compensation order, rejecting all grounds of appeal as the evidence adequately proved the offence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Sessions Judge at Mahesana dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the conviction of Bhangi Manojbhai Kantibhai under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 50,000 as repayment for a hand loan, which was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds, and despite receiving a legal demand notice, failed to pay the amount. The appellate court confirmed the one-year imprisonment sentence and compensation order, rejecting all grounds of appeal as the evidence adequately proved the offence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts