S I of Police Koratty vs Paul — 101000/2018
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420,167,120(b),34. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 26th March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLTR220024842018
Filing Number
101000/2018
Filing Date
10-08-2018
Registration No
101000/2018
Registration Date
10-08-2018
Court
JFCM, Chalakudy
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Decision Date
26th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
FIR Details
FIR Number
677
Police Station
KORATTY
Year
2017
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
S I of Police Koratty
Respondent(s)
Paul
Vijil
Peter Joseph
Adv. Poly Ambooken
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
Order/ Judgement
Appearance of Accused
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 26-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 16-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 02-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 20-02-2026 | Appearance of Accused |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: 101000/2018 The Chalakudy Judicial First Class Magistrate court acquitted accused Viji Paul and Peter Joseph of charges under IPC sections 420 (cheating), 167 (framing incorrect documents), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) related to an alleged overdraft loan fraud. The court found insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting the prosecution relied solely on bank transaction documents without testimony from the key complainant. The court emphasized that mere documentary evidence and suspicion cannot substitute for proof, and both accused were discharged with their bail bonds cancelled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 101000/2018 The Chalakudy Judicial First Class Magistrate court acquitted accused Viji Paul and Peter Joseph of charges under IPC sections 420 (cheating), 167 (framing incorrect documents), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) related to an alleged overdraft loan fraud. The court found insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting the prosecution relied solely on bank transaction documents without testimony from the key complainant. The court emphasized that mere documentary evidence and suspicion cannot substitute for proof, and both accused were discharged with their bail bonds cancelled. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts