CBI Cochin vs Sri. N. Velmurugan Advocate - SURESH.P.G, SURESH.P.G, SURESH.P.GSudarsana S, — 100006/2012
Case under Crl.mp/254/2025 Classification : Application Seeking Permission to Produce Documents Section CBI CochinSri. N. Velmurugan. Disposed: Contested--CONVICTED AND FINED on 30th March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLER150000052012
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
100006/2012
Filing Date
31-10-2012
Registration No
100006/2012
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)
Sri. N. Velmurugan Advocate - SURESH.P.G, SURESH.P.G, SURESH.P.GSudarsana S,
Sri. K.S. Sabu
Adv. MANU TOM
Ms. Sreebala Developers Hotels (P) Ltd. Palakka
Adv. JOHN VARGHESE,MANU TOM
Shri. Nithin Radhakrishnan
Adv. MOHAMMAD SIRAJ.M.A,MANU TOM
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 under Section 311 CrPC to summon an additional witness (a Titan company service engineer) to clarify confusion regarding the model numbers and technical details of watches allegedly seized as illegal gratification in a corruption case involving India Tourism officials. The court found that expert witness examination was necessary for proper case disposal and would not prejudice the accused, rejecting the defense argument that this constituted filling prosecution lacunae. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Special Judge allowed the CBI's petition under Section 311 CrPC to summon an additional witness (a Titan company service engineer) to clarify confusion regarding the model numbers and technical details of watches allegedly seized as illegal gratification in a corruption case involving India Tourism officials. The court found that expert witness examination was necessary for proper case disposal and would not prejudice the accused, rejecting the defense argument that this constituted filling prosecution lacunae. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts