Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN
Kailash Gupta, S/o.Late Sreelal Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent Of Police SPE/CBI, Kochi, Through The Standing Counsel For, CBI, High Court Of Kerala, Ernakulam – Respondent
| 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 :
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.
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.
5. In t
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.
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
