The court held him guilty under various provisions of the IPC, including sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with, 420 (cheating) and 468 (forgery) and awarded him jail term which he has already undergone during adjudication of the case.
It noted that 68-year-old Ghandy was in custody for almost six years and six months during the pendency of case.
"Ghandy is in custody since December 20, 2009 which is almost six years and six months. I, therefore, impose upon him a term of imprisonment already undergone by him," the court, while imposing a fine of Rs 40,000 on him, said.
Acquitting Ghandy of charges under UAPA, Additional Sessions Judge Reetesh Singh noted that "none of the evidence relied upon by prosecution have been found to be admissible in evidence by this court. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses suffer from infirmities."
"The recoveries made at the instance of the accused have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The disclosure statements of Kobad Ghandy cannot be read in evidence...As the same had been made to a police officer.
While holding him guilty of using assumed names and fake identities, he said "it is true that prosecution has been able to prove that Ghandy was residing in Delhi in an assumed name and that he had in his possession forged documents."
"These circumstances do give rise to a grave suspicion that he wanted to avoid himself from from being discovered. Suspicion, however grave it might be, cannot be equated with proof of the said fact. Material relied upon by prosecution to prove membership and association of Ghandy with said banned organisation is not reliable and admissible in evidence...
alias Arvind Joshi for the offence under several sections of IPC, including 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 420 (cheating).
Kumar was also awarded jail term already undergone by him during the adjudication of the case and the court imposed a fine of Rs 20,000 on him.
According to police, Ghandy was residing in Delhi with fake name and identity provided by Kumar, who himself was not using his real name or identity.
The prosecution had earlier claimed that Ghandy, who was arrested in September 2009 in this case in south Delhi for the alleged charges of being a Politburo member of banned outfit CPI(Maoist), was trying to set up a base for naxal activities here and was the "main piller and the think-tank of outfit".
The police had claimed to recover literature and CDs of the outfit. It also claimed that Ghandy was in touch with other associates via e-mail and used to motivate people for joining the outfit.
It had also alleged that Ghandy had visited Nepal in relation to Left extremist activities.
Ghandy was earlier absolved by the court of terror charges due to want of proper sanction and later, a fresh charge sheet was filed by the Special Cell of Delhi Police with another sanction for his prosecution under the provisions of UAPA.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
