IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Kailash Gupta, S/o.Late Sreelal Gupta and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Superintendent Of Police SPE/CBI, Kochi, Through The Standing Counsel For, CBI, High Court Of Kerala, Ernakulam – Respondent
CRL.A No. 2340 of 2006
Decided On : 10-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to conviction and continuation of appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations of conspiracy and cheating. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 3. evidence and procedures in trial. (Para 6 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. definitions and elements of cheating and conspiracy. (Para 30 , 33) |
| 5. analysis of evidence for fraudulent intent. (Para 34 , 37 , 38) |
| 6. modification of sentence and confirmation of conviction. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C. No.2/2002 on the files of the Court of the Special Judge (SPE/CBI)-I, Ernakulam, have filed this appeal, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short], challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, against them as per the judgment dated 30.11.2006. The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Kochi, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the sole respondent herein.
2. During the pendency of this appeal, the 1st appellant/2nd accused died and the wife of the 1st appellant got impleaded as the additional 3rd appellant to continue with this appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Special Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge, the records of the Special Court as well as the decision placed by the learned counsel for the appellants.
4. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’, hereafter.
5. In this matter, the prosecution case is that, the1st accused functioned as Manager, Allahabad Bank, Mattancherry Branch, Kochi, during the period between January, 1996 and June, 1998. The 2nd accused was the Managing Partner and the 3rd accused, who is the son of the 2nd accused, was the Partner of M/s.KVA Brothers, Mattancherry. They had been doing business relating to the trading of dried coconut for producing coconut oil at the factory of the 4th accused known as ‘Jyothi Agro Industries, Akhola’, in Maharashtra State. The 4th accused was the proprietor of M/s.Jyothi Agro Industries, Akhola. The case of the prosecution is that, accused Nos.1 to 4 hatched criminal conspiracy during the year 1997 at Mattancherry, Kochi and Akhola, Maharashtra and also other places for cheating Allahabad Bank, Mattancherry Branch, Kochi and criminal misconduct was done by the 1st accused in the matter of discounting of bills for obtaining undue pecuniary advantage to accused Nos.2 to 4. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, accused Nos.2 and 3 submitted 13 numbers of IBDs (Inland Bill Discounted) during the period between 11.3.1997 and 9.6.1997 for discounting before the 1st accused showing sale of Copra to the 4th accused. Further, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, accused Nos.2 and 3 submitted stale LRs along with the bills showing the consignee as Allahabad Bank after getting the LRs from the transporter without specifying the consignee Bank's name. Further, accused Nos.2 and 3 in pursuance of the conspiracy filed forged invalid open insurance forms along with the said 13 bills in order to make it appear that the said consignments were insured. The 1st accused, in pursuance of the conspiracy by abusing his official position as a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means discounted the said 13 bills totally disregarding the fact that the limit sanctioned under the IBD to M/s.KVA Brothers was already overdrawn and substantial amount was outstanding in the loan account. Further, the 1st accused dishonestly accepted those 13 bills irrespective of the fact that the LRs were stale and as such, he was not allowed such stale LRs. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, accused Nos.2 and 3, after discounting the bills, and on some occasions, even prior to the discounting sent the consignment directly to the 4th accused at Akola in order facilitate him to take delivery of the consignment without making payments against the discounted bills. In pursuance of the conspiracy, the 4th accused took
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.