Mohit trind. vs Rajender jalap — 530/2022
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th May 2026.
Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR
CNR: RJSG180009652022
Filing Number
530/2022
Filing Date
13-07-2022
Registration No
530/2022
Registration Date
13-07-2022
Court
ACJM SADULSAHAR TALUKA
Judge
1-ACJM
Decision Date
12th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mohit trind.
Adv. Laxmi Narayan Sehgal
Respondent(s)
Rajender jalap
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ACJM
Disposed
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
Final arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-05-2026 | Final arguments |
| 07-05-2026 | Final arguments |
| 30-04-2026 | Final arguments |
| 29-04-2026 | Final arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 530/2022 Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Rajendra Jalap of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court found that the petitioner (Mohit Traders) failed to prove the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. Despite the cheque (No. 282757, dated 04.12.2017, for ₹48,700) being dishonored due to insufficient funds, the court determined there was insufficient documentary evidence establishing a valid debt obligation, proper transaction records, or proof that the cheque was issued for a lawful debt, thereby granting the accused the benefit of doubt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 530/2022 Court Decision: The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted defendant Rajendra Jalap of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court found that the petitioner (Mohit Traders) failed to prove the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. Despite the cheque (No. 282757, dated 04.12.2017, for ₹48,700) being dishonored due to insufficient funds, the court determined there was insufficient documentary evidence establishing a valid debt obligation, proper transaction records, or proof that the cheque was issued for a lawful debt, thereby granting the accused 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