RAJESH@RAJU@CHAKO@DATASAHEB NARENDRABHAI TRIVEDI vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - B.G.GUPTA -PP[1]-(G/PP) — 12/2023
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 397,. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 23rd March 2026.
CR RA - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION
CNR: GJNV010004022023
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
12/2023
Filing Date
03-03-2023
Registration No
12/2023
Registration Date
03-03-2023
Court
DISTRICT COURT, NAVSARI
Judge
3-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
23rd March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
FIR Details
FIR Number
4
Police Station
ACB POLICE STATION - NAVSARI DISTRICT
Year
2014
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAJESH@RAJU@CHAKO@DATASAHEB NARENDRABHAI TRIVEDI
Adv. V D NAIK
Respondent(s)
Government of Gujarat Advocate - B.G.GUPTA -PP[1]-(G/PP)
Hearing History
Judge: 3-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
FINAL HEARING
FINAL HEARING
FINAL HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 23-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 16-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 09-03-2026 | FINAL HEARING | |
| 02-02-2026 | FINAL HEARING | |
| 22-12-2025 | FINAL HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Additional Sessions Judge of Navsari dismissed the accused's revision application challenging the trial court's rejection of his discharge petition under Section 239 CrPC. The court held that investigation revealed sufficient circumstantial evidence—including forged documents used to obtain a SIM card for making extortion calls—establishing a prima facie case against the applicant, and that detailed evidence evaluation is inappropriate at the discharge stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Additional Sessions Judge of Navsari dismissed the accused's revision application challenging the trial court's rejection of his discharge petition under Section 239 CrPC. The court held that investigation revealed sufficient circumstantial evidence—including forged documents used to obtain a SIM card for making extortion calls—establishing a prima facie case against the applicant, and that detailed evidence evaluation is inappropriate at the discharge stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts