Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manoj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 August, 2023
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 1 st OF AUGUST, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 722 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. MANOJ S/O SHRI MATHURALAL JI UDASI, AGED
ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PROPERTY
BROKER, R/O; 169, KRANTI KRAPLANI NAGAR,
DISTRICT INDORE, POLICE STATION:
ANNAPURANA, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. AVI S/O SHRI MANOJ JI UDASI, AGED ABOUT 22
YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT, R/O 169, KRANTI
KRAPLANI NAGAR, DISTRICT INDORE, POLICE
STATION: ANNAPURANA, DISTRICT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION ANNAPURNA,
DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MS. VINITA DWIVEDI - PANEL LAWYER)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
With consent heard finally.
2. By this revision preferred under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioners have challenged the order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the XIth Additional Session Judge, Indore in Session Trial No.546/2022 whereby Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA NAGDEVE Signing time: 03-Aug-23 2:31:25 PM 2 charges under Section 3/4 of M.P. Public Gambling Act, 1867 and under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Sections 66-B and 66-C of Information Technology Act, 2000 have been framed against them.
3. The story of the prosecution is that on the basis of a secret information received the Police party reached a house bearing No.169 at Kranti Kraplani Nagar, Indore and entered the same and found the petitioners over there. From their possession a laptop, calculator, mobile phone, register, pen drive, T.V., SIM and cash Rs.4,60,700/- was recovered which was the money for gambling in a cricket match of IPL. On enquiry, they revealed that they had obtained the sim cards in the name of some other person by using forged documents. On the basis of the aforesaid raid having been conducted, offences under the aforesaid acts and sections were registered against petitioners and upon completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed before the Court concerned and eventually the charges as stated above have been framed against the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the entire material on record is taken to be true as its face value no offence is made out against the petitioners. It is submitted that though the allegation is that the sim cards recovered from the petitioners were obtained fraudulently and by using forged documents, but no such forged documents have been recovered in the matter. Even the persons namely Rajaram and Rohit in whose name the sim cards have been issued have expressed not having any knowledge about the entire incident and have stated that they do not know as to how their documents were misused. It is hence submitted that offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC is not made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted that there is no allegation levelled against the petitioners that laptop, Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA NAGDEVE Signing time: 03-Aug-23 2:31:25 PM 3 mobile phone etc. which have been recovered from them were dishonestly received by them knowing them to be stolen property. The offence under Section 66-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is also not made out against the petitioners.
5 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that there is ample material available on record for framing of charges against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences and it cannot be said that the charges as have been framed by the Court below are not supported from the record. Petitioners have obtained SIM cards in name of some other persons by using forged documents and even those persons have stated that they are not aware as to how the same was done. Petitioners have not produced any document to show their ownership of the laptop etc. recovered from them. It is hence submitted that no ground has been made out for quashment of the charges against the petitioners.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record.
7. Section 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC being material are reproduced as under:-
467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.- Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document [or electronic record] forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either Signature Not Verified description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be Signed by: SHILPA NAGDEVE Signing time: 03-Aug-23 2:31:25 PM 4 liable to fine.
471. Using as genuine a forged document [or electronic record.--
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document [or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document [or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document [or electronic record].
8. For the applicability of the aforesaid sections, it is imperative that there must be some document which has been forged by the accused and has been used as a genuine document. There should be an element of cheating in the same and it should also be shown that the accused possessed the document knowing it to be forged and thereafter intended to and used it as genuine.
9. In the present case, it is only the allegation against the petitioners that they had obtained the sim cards in name of some other persons by using forged documents. However, those documents which are alleged to have been used for the purpose of securing the forged SIM cards have not been recovered. In absence of any document which is alleged to be forged, it is very difficult to make out an offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. Even the persons in whose name those documents were prepared have not stated that those documents are not theirs and have instead stated that they are not aware of anything in the matter. Thus offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC is not made out against the petitioners.
10. Section 66-B and 66-C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is as under:-
66-B. Punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or communication device.--Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen computer resource or communication device knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen computer resource or communication device, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh or with both.
66-C. Punishment for identity theft.--Whoever, fraudulently or Signature Not Verified dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other Signed by: SHILPA NAGDEVE Signing time: 03-Aug-23 2:31:25 PM 5 unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one lakh.
11. For attracting the provisions of Sections 66-B of the Act, 2000 it has to be atleast alleged that the accused dishonestly received or retained any stolen computer resource or communication device knowing the same to be stolen. The laptop, computer etc. which have been recovered from the possession of the petitioners have not been shown not to be owned by them and to be owned by some third person and which have been received and retained by the petitioners knowing that they are stolen. There is no document of ownership of these articles hence prima facie itself it has not been shown that they are stolen articles. The question of the petitioners receiving or retaining the same hence does not arise. As far as Section 66-C of the Act, 2000 is concerned there is no allegation of use of any electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person by the petitioners. The said offence is also not made out against the petitioners.
12. Thus in view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and Section 66-B and 66-C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 are not made out against the petitioners even if the entire allegations as levelled against them and the material contained in the charge-sheet is taken to be true at the stage. As a result, the charges framed against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences are hereby quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed in part.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE Shilpa Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA NAGDEVE Signing time: 03-Aug-23 2:31:25 PM 6 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA NAGDEVE Signing time: 03-Aug-23 2:31:25 PM