Government of Gujarat vs ZALA DINESHSINH GULABSINH Advocate - N.D.RATHOD — 914/2008
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 114,420,465,467,468,471. Disposed: Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL on 02nd April 2026.
CC - CRIMINAL CASE
CNR: GJSK030002422008
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
914/2008
Filing Date
17-05-2008
Registration No
914/2008
Registration Date
17-05-2008
Court
TALUKA COURT, PRANTIJ
Judge
1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Decision Date
02nd April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--JUDGMENT BY ACQUITTAL
FIR Details
FIR Number
I 25
Police Station
PRANTIJ POLICE STATION - SABARKANTHA DISTRICT
Year
2008
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Government of Gujarat
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
ZALA DINESHSINH GULABSINH Advocate - N.D.RATHOD
Patel Rohitbhai Prabhudasbhai
Hearing History
Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDL. CJM
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 30-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 27-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 18-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 13-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted all accused in Criminal Case No. 914/2008 and 61/2015, both consolidated. The accused were charged under IPC sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, and 114 for allegedly creating fraudulent bank drafts. The court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting inconsistencies in evidence, contradictory witness statements, and insufficient proof of criminal conspiracy despite detailed examination of documentary evidence including bank drafts, account statements, and witness testimonies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted all accused in Criminal Case No. 914/2008 and 61/2015, both consolidated. The accused were charged under IPC sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, and 114 for allegedly creating fraudulent bank drafts. The court found the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting inconsistencies in evidence, contradictory witness statements, and insufficient proof of criminal conspiracy despite detailed examination of documentary evidence including bank drafts, account statements, and witness testimonies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts