Sri.Kiran Raju Bhajantri 27yrs R/o.TRT cross subhash Nagar Dandeli Tq.Dandeli UK vs Sri.Sampath Kumar Samuel R/o.Near Ishwar Mandir Old Dandeli Tq.Dandeli UK — 121/2019
Case under U/sec. 200 of Crpc and U/sec.142 of N.i.act 1881 Section 326. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 05th May 2026.
C.C. - CRIMINAL CASES
CNR: KAUK410003552019
Filing Number
121/2019
Filing Date
11-04-2019
Registration No
121/2019
Registration Date
11-04-2019
Court
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DANDELI
Judge
524-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, DANDELI
Decision Date
05th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sri.Kiran Raju Bhajantri 27yrs R/o.TRT cross subhash Nagar Dandeli Tq.Dandeli UK
Adv. ROOPA MAHADEV KERWADKAR,
Respondent(s)
Sri.Sampath Kumar Samuel R/o.Near Ishwar Mandir Old Dandeli Tq.Dandeli UK
Hearing History
Judge: 524-CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, DANDELI
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 28-04-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 27-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: C.C. No. 121/2019 Court Decision: The accused Sampath Kumar Samuel was acquitted of offences under Sections 138 & 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Key Reasoning: The court found fatal discrepancies in the complainant's evidence. The complaint alleged a cheque bearing No. 293727 for ₹1,50,000, but the documentary evidence produced showed cheque No. 384482. This mismatch between pleadings and supporting documents meant the complainant failed to prove his case with corroborative evidence beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: C.C. No. 121/2019 Court Decision: The accused Sampath Kumar Samuel was acquitted of offences under Sections 138 & 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Key Reasoning: The court found fatal discrepancies in the complainant's evidence. The complaint alleged a cheque bearing No. 293727 for ₹1,50,000, but the documentary evidence produced showed cheque No. 384482. This mismatch between pleadings and supporting documents meant the complainant failed to prove his case with corroborative evidence beyond reasonable doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts