Mohit trind. vs Rajender jalap — 530/2022

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed

Cr. Reg. Case - CR. REGULAR

CNR: RJSG180009652022

Filing Number

530/2022

Filing Date

13-Jul-2022

Registration No

530/2022

Registration Date

13-Jul-2022

Court

ACJM SADULSAHAR TALUKA

Judge

1-Acjm

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Last updated 27-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Mohit trind.

    Adv. Laxmi Narayan Sehgal

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Rajender jalap

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    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.

  3. 12-May-2026

    Disposed

    Acjm

  4. 08-May-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  5. 07-May-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  6. 30-Apr-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  7. 29-Apr-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  8. 21-Apr-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  9. 16-Apr-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  10. 09-Apr-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  11. 27-Mar-2026

    Final arguments

    Acjm

  12. 12-Mar-2026

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  13. 02-Feb-2026

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  14. 24-Dec-2025

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  15. 13-Nov-2025

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  16. 23-Sep-2025

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  17. 16-Sep-2025

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  18. 17-Jul-2025

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  19. 02-Jun-2025

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  20. 19-Apr-2025

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  21. 06-Mar-2025

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  22. 31-Jan-2025

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  23. 12-Dec-2024

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  24. 13-Nov-2024

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  25. 30-Sep-2024

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  26. 21-Aug-2024

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  27. 18-Jun-2024

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  28. 22-Apr-2024

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  29. 21-Feb-2024

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  30. 24-Nov-2023

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  31. 04-Oct-2023

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  32. 14-Jun-2023

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  33. 08-Mar-2023

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  34. 07-Mar-2023

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  35. 12-Nov-2022

    Recording pre-trial statements/ evidence

    Acjm

  36. 03-Nov-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  37. 13-Jul-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 530/2022

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case