Kalu Singh vs Jagdishprasad — 112/2019
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--Convicted and Sentenced on 09th April 2026.
Complaint
CNR: RJSK120001772019
Filing Number
175/2019
Filing Date
16-Feb-2019
Registration No
112/2019
Registration Date
26-Feb-2019
Court
ACJM RINGUS TALUKA HQ
Judge
1-Acjm
Decision Date
09-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Convicted and Sentenced
Last updated 05-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Kalu Singh
Adv. Mohan Lal Baloda
Respondent(s)
-
1.Jagdishprasad
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
09-Apr-2026
JudgementView PDF
Case Summary The court convicted the accused, Jagdish Prasad, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for issuing a bounced check. The complainant (Kaalu Singh) had lent ₹1,00,000 to the accused, who issued a check dated 30.10.2018 that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite receiving legal notice, the accused failed to pay the amount, leading to the conviction. The court sentenced the accused to 3 months imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,42,000 to be paid as compensation to the complainant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
09-Apr-2026
Disposed
Acjm
-
10-Mar-2026
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Acjm
-
29-Jan-2026
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Acjm
-
18-Dec-2025
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Acjm
-
24-Nov-2025
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Acjm
-
29-Oct-2025
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Acjm
-
16-Sep-2025
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Acjm
-
05-Aug-2025
Defence Evidence
Acjm
-
06-Jun-2025
Defence Evidence
Acjm
-
29-Apr-2025
Defence Evidence
Acjm
-
21-Mar-2025
Examination of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
Acjm
-
18-Feb-2025
Defence Evidence
Acjm
-
19-Dec-2024
Defence Evidence
Acjm
-
12-Dec-2024
Defence Evidence
Acjm
-
06-Nov-2024
Defence Evidence
Acjm
-
02-Sep-2024
Defence Evidence
Acjm
-
02-Jul-2024
Defence Evidence
Acjm
-
29-May-2024
Defence Evidence
Acjm
-
04-Mar-2024
Defence Evidence
Acjm
-
21-Dec-2023
Defence Evidence
Acjm
-
20-Oct-2023
Defence Evidence
Acjm
-
25-Aug-2023
Defence Evidence
Acjm
-
03-May-2023
Defence Evidence
Acjm
-
02-Dec-2022
Defence Evidence
Acjm
-
20-Sep-2022
Defence Evidence
Acjm
-
25-Jul-2022
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
Acjm
-
13-Apr-2022
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
Acjm
-
11-Dec-2021
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
04-Dec-2021
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Aug-2021
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
24-Apr-2021
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
12-Mar-2021
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
27-Nov-2020
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
07-Jul-2020
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
24-Mar-2020
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
20-Dec-2019
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
11-Oct-2019
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
14-Sep-2019
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
08-Aug-2019
Service of Summons/bailable warrant
Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate
-
03-Jun-2019
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Feb-2019
Case filed
Registration No. 112/2019
Case Summary The court convicted the accused, Jagdish Prasad, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for issuing a bounced check. The complainant (Kaalu Singh) had lent ₹1,00,000 to the accused, who issued a check dated 30.10.2018 that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite receiving legal notice, the accused failed to pay the amount, leading to the conviction. The court sentenced the accused to 3 months imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,42,000 to be paid as compensation to the complainant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts