Madhukar Namdeo Gharate vs Ananda Shankar Suryawanshi Advocate - Deore Prakash D. — 599/2019
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138,. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 09th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Summons/Summary Criminal Case
CNR: MHDH050017302019
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1351/2019
Filing Date
12-11-2019
Registration No
599/2019
Registration Date
12-11-2019
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Sakri
Judge
13-Jt Civil Judge JD and JMFC Sakri
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Madhukar Namdeo Gharate
Adv. Patil Ravindra A.
Respondent(s)
Ananda Shankar Suryawanshi Advocate - Deore Prakash D.
Hearing History
Judge: 13-Jt Civil Judge JD and JMFC Sakri
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 06-03-2026 | Judgment | |
| 21-02-2026 | Judgment | |
| 04-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 20-01-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused, Ananda Shankar Suryawanshi, of cheque dishonour charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the complainant failed to prove essential elements: the existence of a legally enforceable debt, actual dishonour of the cheque (due to inadequate bank memo details), and proper service of statutory demand notice (as the notice itself was not produced). Despite material inconsistencies in witness testimonies and absence of corroborating documentary evidence, the court determined the complaint was filed within the prescribed time limit but lacked foundational proof, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused, Ananda Shankar Suryawanshi, of cheque dishonour charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found that the complainant failed to prove essential elements: the existence of a legally enforceable debt, actual dishonour of the cheque (due to inadequate bank memo details), and proper service of statutory demand notice (as the notice itself was not produced). Despite material inconsistencies in witness testimonies and absence of corroborating documentary evidence, the court determined the complaint was filed within the prescribed time limit but lacked foundational proof, entitling the accused to the benefit of 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