Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2004
accused in such
cases and as a precaution to manipulate documents later and
to avoid all unnecessary harassment, non compliance of this
vitiates trial. With
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 1448 (0.12 seconds)Thankappan Mohanan And Ors. vs State Of Kerala on 9 November, 1989
counsel for the appellant would contend that Ext. P1 is a manipulated document and could have been created only the next morning after
Dincy Davis vs The State Of Kerala on 5 June, 2014
Dincy Davis vs The State Of Kerala on 5 June, 2014
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench
T.Babu Raj vs K.Faizel on 8 January, 2003
complaint. The allegation was that they have forged his
signature, manipulated the documents and caused heavy loss
to the firm and to him. The learned ... were shown
as third and fourth accused in the complaint, manipulated
certain documents, submitted documents forging his signature
and created loans so as to cause
Sahadevan vs State Of Kerala on 2 December, 2008
consequent Ext.P15 First Information Report
are concocted documents and the same were manipulated by
the Police against the accused. The learned counsel submits ... learned counsel submits that Ext.P1 is a
concocted and manipulated document created and that too after
Ext.P9 Statement connected with
Savithri Antharjanam vs The Kerala State Co-Operative Election ... on 15 July, 2014
first respondent, was a document created by the President
and the Secretary, with the object of manipulating the election.
According to the petitioners, the conduct ... minutes of the meeting. The same is only a
manipulated document.
10. A perusal of Ext.R5(a) shows that, it was a specific
Selvaraj Francis vs Returning Officer on 21 October, 2004
second respondent was in order, the second respondent had manipulated documents in such a way that there was acceptance of his voluntary retirement before
Mereena Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 15 November, 2018
applicant herein, who was the Assistant Manager of the Bank,
had manipulated documents for securing the loan. He is involved in
other similar offences
Dr.Ajith Kumar vs University Of Kerala And Others
Director of Medical Education, and
that he produced a defaced and manipulated
document before this Honourable Court.
The 5th respondent had submitted her
remarks
Bhageerathi vs Ramakrishna on 2 August, 2010
Ramachandra was a Village-man and he
could easily get documents manipulated. The learned
counsel pointed out that unfortunately, without any
evidence to that effect ... Court to come to the
conclusion that the documents produced by the plaintiffs
might have been manipulated. There is no justification for
such a finding