labh cand jain vs rajesh mali kekri — 180/2018
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 13th March 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJAJ140002682018
Filing Number
268/2018
Filing Date
16-02-2018
Registration No
180/2018
Registration Date
08-02-2018
Court
ACJM JM Kekri Taluka Criminal
Judge
2-ACJM 1
Decision Date
13th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
labh cand jain
Respondent(s)
rajesh mali kekri
Hearing History
Judge: 2-ACJM 1
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 13-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 26-02-2026 | Final arguments |
| 07-02-2026 | Final arguments |
| 15-01-2026 | Final arguments |
| 17-12-2025 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Labh Cand Jain v. Rajesh Kumar Mali Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kekri (Ajmer) acquitted the accused Rajesh Kumar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Key Reasoning: The court found that the complainant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a legally enforceable debt existed. Critical evidentiary gaps included: (1) the legal notice was sent to the wrong address ("Khati Mohalla" instead of the accused's actual residence "Khaigarh Mohalla"), undermining service of notice; (2) the complainant's own testimony contained contradictory statements about when and how the Rs. 2,00,000 loan was disbursed; (3) no documentary evidence supported the alleged loan; and (4) the commercial relationship between the accused and complainant's brother suggested the cheque may have been for a business transaction rather than a personal loan, contradicting the complainant's narrative. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Labh Cand Jain v. Rajesh Kumar Mali Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kekri (Ajmer) acquitted the accused Rajesh Kumar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Key Reasoning: The court found that the complainant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a legally enforceable debt existed. Critical evidentiary gaps included: (1) the legal notice was sent to the wrong address ("Khati Mohalla" instead of the accused's actual residence "Khaigarh Mohalla"), undermining service of notice; (2) the complainant's own testimony contained contradictory statements about when and how the Rs. 2,00,000 loan was disbursed; (3) no documentary evidence supported the alleged loan; and (4) the commercial relationship between the accused and complainant's brother suggested the cheque may have been for a business transaction rather than a personal loan, contradicting the complainant's narrative. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts