CBI Cochin vs Shri. N.Velmurugan Advocate - SURESH.P.G, SURESH.P.G, SURESH.P.GSudarsana S, — 100005/2012
Case under Ipc \ Section 7and13(2)r/w13(1)(d). Disposed: Contested--CONVICTED AND FINED on 30th March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLER150000022012
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
100005/2012
Filing Date
31-10-2012
Registration No
100005/2012
Registration Date
31-10-2012
Court
Special Court SPE. CBI-I, Ernakulam
Judge
1-Spl Judge (SPE/CBI)-I
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--CONVICTED AND FINED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
CBI Cochin
Respondent(s)
Shri. N.Velmurugan Advocate - SURESH.P.G, SURESH.P.G, SURESH.P.GSudarsana S,
Shri. K.S. Babu
Adv. MOHAMMAD SIRAJ.M.A
Ms. Malappuram Hotels Resorts (P) Ltd.
Adv. MANU TOM
Shri.V.M. Radhakrishnan
Adv. MANU TOM,BALAMURALI K P
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Spl Judge (SPE/CBI)-I
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
For further hearing
For further hearing
For further hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 25-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement | |
| 13-03-2026 | For further hearing | |
| 09-03-2026 | For further hearing | |
| 27-02-2026 | For further hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Judgement
Interim Orders
Summary The Special Judge allowed the CBI's petition to summon an additional witness (a Titan service engineer) under Section 311 CrPC in a corruption case involving alleged illegal gratification of two government tourism officials through watches and cash. The court held that expert testimony was necessary to clarify confusion regarding watch model numbers and serial details to prove the seized watches matched those purchased as bribes, finding this essential for just disposal despite the trial's advanced stage and High Court's directive to expedite proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Special Judge allowed the CBI's petition to summon an additional witness (a Titan service engineer) under Section 311 CrPC in a corruption case involving alleged illegal gratification of two government tourism officials through watches and cash. The court held that expert testimony was necessary to clarify confusion regarding watch model numbers and serial details to prove the seized watches matched those purchased as bribes, finding this essential for just disposal despite the trial's advanced stage and High Court's directive to expedite proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts