Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN
C.Sasidharan Nair – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
1. These criminal appeals have been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short). Crl.A. Nos.423/2016 & 458/2016 have been filed at the instance of one Sri.C.Sasidharan Nair, who is accused No.2, and Crl.A. Nos.470/2016 & 471/2016 have been filed at the instance of one Sri.Sasikumar, who is accused No.1, in C.C. Nos.30/2009 & 32/2009 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as ‘Special Court’ for short) challenging the verdict of conviction and sentence dated 28.04.2016 in the above cases. The sole respondent in all these appeals is the State of Kerala represented by VACB. C.C. Nos.30/2009 & 32/2009 were jointly tried by the learned Special Judge and rendered a common verdict on 28.04.2016.
2. Heard Adv.Suman Chakravarthy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused No.2 in Crl.A. Nos.423/2016 and 458/2016 and Sri.Ananth Krishna K.S. who was appointed as State Brief for the appellant/accused No.1 in Crl.A. Nos.470/2016 & 471/2016, since the counsel who filed these appeals had relinquished his engagement, as well a
Public servants convicted of misappropriation and forgery through forged loan applications must be proven to have made false documents and abused their positions, affirming the importance of direct e....
Public servants are criminally liable for misappropriation of entrusted property through forgery, supported by identification of handwriting, fulfilling requirements of the Prevention of Corruption A....
The court affirmed that conspiracy and forgery can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, establishing the appellant's involvement in obtaining a loan through deceitful means.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of forgery and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt due to irregularities in evidence collection.
The court affirmed that the efficacy of framing charges relies on the existence of sufficient prima facie evidence, without requiring deep merits assessment at the initial stage.
The prosecution could not establish the case against the appellant under Section 120(B)/468 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(2) & Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19....
The main legal point established is that the appellant, as a public servant, committed offences of cheating, forgery, and misconduct, and the prosecution proved the charges beyond doubt.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the offences of conspiracy and forgery against the appellants, with mere suspicion not serving as a substitute for valid evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
