krishna lal vs maniram — 102/2019

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 27th April 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJSG180001752019

Filing Number

175/2019

Filing Date

18-Feb-2019

Registration No

102/2019

Registration Date

18-Feb-2019

Court

ACJM SADULSAHAR TALUKA

Judge

1-Acjm

Decision Date

27-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 27-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.krishna lal

    Adv. Kundanlal Chugh

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.maniram

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 27-Apr-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: 102/2019 - Krishna Lal v. Maniram Court Decision (27.04.2026): The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Maniram of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, giving him the benefit of doubt. The court found that the petitioner (Krishna Lal) failed to establish the essential elements of the offense through credible evidence. Key Reasoning: The court noted significant contradictions in Krishna Lal's testimony during cross-examination. Krishna Lal claimed to have given a loan of ₹80,000 to Maniram but contradicted himself about whether it was a personal loan or related to committee funds. He failed to produce the two witnesses allegedly present when the loan was given, and the notice regarding the cheque's dishonor was not properly served on the defendant. Additionally, the court found that Krishna Lal did not comply with procedural requirements under the Negotiable Instruments Act for proving the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 27-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 21-Apr-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  5. 17-Apr-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  6. 10-Apr-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  7. 27-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  8. 12-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  9. 20-Feb-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  10. 22-Jan-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  11. 16-Dec-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  12. 11-Nov-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  13. 24-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  14. 12-Sep-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  15. 13-Aug-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  16. 10-Jul-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  17. 06-Jun-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  18. 25-Apr-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  19. 27-Mar-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  20. 24-Jan-2025

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  21. 22-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  22. 14-Dec-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  23. 08-Nov-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  24. 27-Sep-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  25. 05-Aug-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  26. 03-Jun-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  27. 20-Apr-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  28. 29-Jan-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  29. 08-Jan-2024

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  30. 06-Dec-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  31. 27-Oct-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  32. 04-Sep-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  33. 07-Aug-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  34. 26-Jun-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  35. 20-Jun-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  36. 10-Apr-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  37. 21-Feb-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  38. 31-Jan-2023

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  39. 16-Dec-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  40. 20-Sep-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  41. 15-Jun-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  42. 21-Mar-2022

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  43. 23-Dec-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  44. 20-Aug-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  45. 07-May-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  46. 29-Jan-2021

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  47. 16-Oct-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  48. 03-Jul-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  49. 06-May-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  50. 03-Apr-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  51. 22-Jan-2020

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  52. 03-Oct-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  53. 03-Jul-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  54. 16-May-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  55. 27-Apr-2019

    Prosecution Evidence

    Acjm

  56. 06-Apr-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  57. 18-Feb-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. 102/2019

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 102/2019 - Krishna Lal v. Maniram Court Decision (27.04.2026): The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Maniram of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, giving him the benefit of doubt. The court found that the petitioner (Krishna Lal) failed to establish the essential elements of the offense through credible evidence. Key Reasoning: The court noted significant contradictions in Krishna Lal's testimony during cross-examination. Krishna Lal claimed to have given a loan of ₹80,000 to Maniram but contradicted himself about whether it was a personal loan or related to committee funds. He failed to produce the two witnesses allegedly present when the loan was given, and the notice regarding the cheque's dishonor was not properly served on the defendant. Additionally, the court found that Krishna Lal did not comply with procedural requirements under the Negotiable Instruments Act for proving the offense. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case