Cheque Bounce Case: Pradeep Kumar Gupta Acquitted After Six Years

Court exonerates Gupta in Rs 5 lakh cheque bounce case, citing insufficient evidence

In a six-year-old cheque bounce case, Pradeep Kumar Gupta has been acquitted by the court of first class judicial magistrate Siddhant Tigga.

JAMSHEDPUR – Pradeep Kumar Gupta has been acquitted in a cheque bounce case involving Rs 5 lakh, bringing an end to a legal battle that lasted over six years.

The court of first class judicial magistrate Siddhant Tigga delivered the verdict, ruling in favor of Gupta.

The case originated on November 20, 2017, when VP Rao filed a complaint against Gupta.

Rao alleged that Gupta had issued a cheque worth Rs 5 lakh as repayment for a loan, which bounced due to insufficient funds.

Rao, supported by Advocate Mo Rahmatullah, presented one witness to back his claims.

On the defense side, Advocate Guddu Haider represented Gupta, arguing successfully for his acquittal.

Two witnesses were presented by the defense to substantiate their case.

During the trial, Rao insisted that Gupta had intentionally issued a fraudulent cheque.

However, the defense countered this by arguing that there was no fraudulent intent on Gupta’s part and presented evidence accordingly.

After carefully reviewing the evidence and testimonies, Magistrate Siddhant Tigga concluded that there was insufficient proof to convict Gupta.

The court’s decision to acquit Gupta marks the end of a prolonged and contentious legal dispute.

Advocate Guddu Haider expressed satisfaction with the outcome, stating that the court’s verdict underscored the importance of thorough and unbiased examination of evidence, adding that his client had always maintained his innocence, and today’s ruling validated that.

On the other hand, the complainant, VP Rao, expressed disappointment but respected the court’s decision, mentioning that while he was disappointed with the verdict, he believed in the judicial process and accepted the court’s ruling.

An insider familiar with the case commented, "This decision highlights the complexity of proving fraudulent intent in financial disputes."