Delhi District Court
State vs Aman Preet Baweja on 27 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE: NEW DELHI
DISTRICT: PATIALA HOUSE COURTS :
DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Shriya Agrawal
State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors
FIR No. 71/2003
Police Station : Special Cell
Under Sections: 420/120 B IPC, Sections 4,20 and 25 of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885
Date of institution : 05.08.2006
Date of reserving : 27.09.2025
Date of pronouncement : 27.09.2025
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : Cr. Case 48720/2016
b) Date of commission of : 02.09.2003
offence
c) Name of the complainant : GS Sharma, Manager Vigilance
VSNL
d) Name, parentage and : 1. Amanpreet Baweja s/o Sh.
address of the accused Barjinder Singh Baweja
2. Sarabhjeet Singh Chadha
@ Rippy s/o Late Kulwant
Singh
State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 1/27
3. Rakesh Sidhu @ Sunny s/o
Late GS Sidhu
4. Om Prakash s/o Laxmi Dutt
e) Offence complained of : Section 420/120 IPC and Sections
4/20 and 25 of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885.
f) Plea of the accused : Accused persons pleaded not
guilty.
g) Final order : All the Accused stand acquitted
for all the offences.
h) Date of final order : 27.09.2025
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The above-mentioned accused persons were arraigned for trial before this court on basis of a police report with accusations of having been party to a criminal conspiracy and pursuant to the common object of such conspiracy having committed offences of cheating punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and of breaches of certain statutory prohibitions and consequently having committed offences punishable under Sections 4/20 and 25 of the Indian Telegraphs Act,1885.
2. The police case was registered, inter alia, on the complaint of one Mr. G.S. Sharma, Manager, Vigilance, VSNL, New Delhi, regarding running of an illegal telephone exchange using some mobile numbers for automatic termination of international calls by diverting it to local numbers. As per the complaint dated 06.08.2003, the details of the mobile numbers which were being used illegally for the Automatic Switching of International State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 2/27 Calls received from some international media were mentioned therein, further reporting that the matter required investigation as some persons/ companies were illegally receiving and switching international calls, bypassing authorized ILD operators, thereby causing huge losses and cheating of revenue to ILD operators/ MTNL etc., these being capable of posing threat to national security. Upon the receipt of the complaint concerning running of illegal traffic exchange using some mobile numbers for Automatic Termination of International Calls by diverting it to local numbers, during enquiry, it was statedly revealed that two such setups were being operated in the area of Punjabi Bagh and Noida. The enquiry is stated to have further revealed that one Mr. Amanpreet Baweja, residing in Bangkok in collusion with one Sarabjeet Singh was operating these setups.
3. It is stated in the police report that on 02.09.2003, an information was received in Special Cell through the informer that Amanpreet Baweja and Sarabjeet Singh would meet in front of McDonalds Restaurant at 3 pm in Punjabi Bagh and thereafter proceed to check their illegal telephone exchange. This information was recorded in the daily diary and discussed with Senior Officers. Immediately, a team under the supervision of Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma, consisting of SI Sanjay Dutt, Inspector Lalit Mohan, Inspector Govind Sharma, SI Jai Kishan, SI Harender Singh, ASI Vikram Singh and HC Jagdish was constituted. The police case is that the team departed from the Office of Special Cell in two private cars at about 1:30 PM and reached near Punjabi Bagh, Mc Donalds restaurant at 2:20 PM, where SI Sanjay Dutt met the informer. The staff was briefed and directed to scatter nearby. At around 3 PM, a Honda City Car bearing registration no. DL3CJ9834 coming from Punjabi Bagh West side stopped near the McDonalds restaurant. The person driving the car was identified by the informer as Sarabjeet Chadha. After about 5 minutes, another Honda City car bearing registration no. DL2CM4984 came near the McDonald's State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 3/27 restaurant and the person driving the car was identified as Amanpreet Baweja. Soon, thereafter, both the cars started going toward West Punjabi Bagh when they were followed. The cars stopped in front of House no. 33, Road no. 42, West Punjabi Bagh. The occupants of the cars alighted and climbed on to the second floor of the premises. Immediately, at 3:30 PM, a raid was conducted to verify the information. The door of the premises was opened after disclosure of identity and purpose by SI Sanjay Dutt. The names of all the three persons were revealed as 1. Sarabjeet Singh Chadha S/o Late Sh. K.S. Chadha, 2. Amanpreet Baweja S/o Sh. Barjinder Singh Baweja and 3. Rakesh Sidhu @Sunny S/o Late Sh. G.S. Sidhu. The said persons were found in the Room ( Barsati) situated on the second floor of the premises where a setup consisting of 48 mobile phones and other instruments were found installed. Adjacent to the room, one V-SAT dish antenna was also found installed on the roof of the premises. The Vigilance Officer from VSNL was informed who arrived at the spot with Senior Engineer from VSNL, Mr. Ashish Aggarwal and Sarvender Singh, Director Vigilance, DOT at 4:50 PM, who after inspecting the setup confirmed that the same was illegal call termination setup used to receive international calls bypassing the authorized ILD operators. The team of VSNL and DOT officials prepared the inspection report of the illegal setup.
4. In this background, a request for registration of FIR for offences punishable under Sections 420/ 379/120B IPC read with Section 3 and 6 Indian Wireless Telegraph Act and Section 4, 20, 20A, 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act was sent. The FIR stood registered for the aforesaid offences on 02.09.2003 with Special Cell/ SB Lodhi colony.
5. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against four accused persons viz. Aman Preet Baweja S/o Barjinder Singh Baweja (A-1), Sarabjeet Singh Chadha @Rippy S/o Late Sh. Kulwant Singh (A-2), Rakesh Sidhu @ Sunny S/o Late Sh. G.S. Sidhu (A-3) and Omprakash S/o State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 4/27 Sh. Laxmi Dutt (A-4). As per the chargesheet, after the raid was conducted, during investigation the illegal telephone setup was dismantled and the equipment were seized vide seizure memo. The accused were interrogated. During further investigation, Accused Sarabjeet Singh and Amanpreet Baweja on cursory interrogation revealed that they had a similar illegal telephone exchange setup on the roof of K Block, Ansal Fortune Arcade, Sector-18, Opposite Sub Mall at Noida, UP. On this information, a raid was conducted with a team and officials of DoT & VSNL along with Accused Amanpreet Baweja at K Block, Ansal Fortune Arcade, Sector-18, Opposite Sub Mall, Noida, UP. Accused Amanpreet Baweja led the police party to the roof of the building where one room was found open and one Om Prakash S/o Laxmi r/o House of Trilok Bhati, Vill. Silarpur Bhnagel, Noida. UP was found operating the illegal telephone exchange. A setup consisting of 63 mobile phones and other instruments were found installed, adjacent to that room one V-Sat dish antenna was found installed on the roof of the premises. Sh. G.S. Sharma, Manager, Vigilance, VSNL, Sh. Ashish Aggarwal, Sr. Engineer, VSNL and Sh. Sarvender Singh, Director, Vigilance, DOT inspected the setup and revealed that the setup was illegal call termination setup used to receive international calls, bypassing the authorized ILD operators. The team of VSNL and DOT officials prepared the inspection report of this illegal setup. After inspection, the equipment used/ installed for operating the illegal telephone exchange was dismantled and sealed.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
6. The chargesheet was filed on 5.8.2006. By the order of the same day, all Accused were summoned. Another person Gurcharan Singh named in column number 2 of the chargesheet was also summoned by the then Ld. CMM vide Order dated 27.3.2009 finding prima facie a case of his having State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 5/27 participated in the criminal conspiracy as well. However, he was subsequently discharged vide Order dated 14.10.2009 passed by the Ld. Court of Sessions as recorded in the Order dated 12.12.2009. On 12.12.2009, the Order on Charge was passed by the then Ld. CMM, observing a case for offences punishable under Sections 420/120 B IPC, Section 4/20 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 being made out against the remaining Accused persons. Charges were accordingly framed to which the Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
7. The Prosecution has cited a total of thirteen witnesses out of whom ten witnesses have been examined.
8. The first witness to depose for the Prosecution was Mr. GS Sharma, who while being examined as PW1 stated that he was at the relevant time working as Manager (Vigilance) at Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short 'VSNL'), now known as Tata Communications Ltd., when he lodged a complaint (Ex PW1/A) with the ACP Special Cell at Lodhi Colony on 6.8.2003 concerning a set-up of illegal international telephony working at some location at Delhi by illegal usage of GSM numbers of Hutch Telecom Operators. Some of the numbers being used illegally were mentioned in the complaint. Thereupon, the Special Cell Officers conducted internal enquiries and gathered information concerning running of such setups and then called the deponent on 2.9.2003 in the evening to participate in the joint inspection to establish the illegal setups being run by illegal use of the mentioned telephone numbers. He then coordinated with his State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 6/27 internal officers for technical assistance in conduct of the inspection. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, then Engineer in VSNL was deputed to associate with the deponent as a technical officer. Mr. Sarvender Singh, the then Director (Vigilance) in Department of Telecom (for short 'DOT'), Government of India (for short 'GOI') associated in conduct of inspection. In the evening of 2.9.2003 at about 4:45 PM, they conducted joint inspection at House No. 33 Road No. 42, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi in presence and participation of officers of Special Cell of Delhi Police, where Accused Amanpreet Baweja, Sarabjeet Singh and one person Rakesh were present. On inspection it was noticed that a V-sat (Very Small Aperture Terminal) was installed and powered on along with all the necessary equipment at the roof top of the premises. It was connected with network router, a satellite modem and two CAC Access Bank Multiplexer in the adjacent room. The CAC multiplexer was connected with 48 numbers of Nokia GSM units containing SIM Cards of Hutch. The entire setup was powered on and found functional with the traffic flow of international calls being received through band-with derived from satellite antenna and apparatus, and the same was being automatically switched with the interfacing mechanism provided through modem router and multiplexer of CAC make used in the setup. The international calls were by-passing the legal route of handling of international calls, causing loss of revenue for Government of India. After completion of inspection, the technical members prepared the actual layout diagram. The inspection report was labelled as Ex PW1/B, on which the witness identified his signatures at Point A. The actual layout diagram of the equipment and connectivity was labelled as Ex PW1/C. The State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 7/27 equipment was seized vide memo Ex PW1/D. A list of mobile numbers was prepared and labelled as Ex PW1/E.
9. The witness PW1 further stated that after completion of the inspection, the team moved to another location i.e. K Block Ansal, Sector 18 Noida for conduct of inspection regarding another similar set up established there. This inspection was conducted at the night of 2.9.2003 and lasted till 3.9.2003. In this setup, a V-sat was found installed at the roof top, similarly connected with Act Network Router, Satellite Modem and three numbers of CAC, which was further connected with 63 numbers of Hutch GSM connections installed in several GSM units in SIMs. After conclusion of this further round of inspection, a report Ex PW1/F was prepared. The layout diagram of the equipment was made Ex PW1/G and the list of numbers found after dialing and physical inspection of connectivity was prepared and labelled as Ex PW1/H. This equipment was also seized vide memo Ex PW1/I. At the Noida address, Accused Om Prakash was found present and the premises was opened. The witness was cross examined and discharged.
10. The second witness to depose was Mr. Harsh Vardhan Singh Additional GM, BSNL. While being examined as PW2, the witness stated that in the year 2004, he was posted as DOT [Director Vigilance (Tech)], when on information available / as provided, he had calculated loss of Rs. 1,96,74,826/- against 177 numbers. The details were enclosed in a report, which was labelled as Ex PW2/A. The details of the phone numbers part of Ex PW2/A, were labelled as Ex PW2/A-1 to A-4. He affirmed having clarified on the procedure that only ILDOs (International Long Distance Operators) could route State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 8/27 international incoming calls to the country. He stated that the call generated outside India is brought through legal foreign courier and routed to authorized licence ILDO serving as a gateway. These ILDO further route the calls as received and further pass on to the NLDOs and BSOs. In case NLDOs take the call, they further route the calls to BSOs and finally these BSOs terminate the calls to the called party. The diagram of the same at Point X was labeled as Ex PW2/B. The V-SAT between two ends with satellite in between operates the allocated frequency band of operation provided by Wireless Planning & Coordination (WPC). As the illegal VSAT in the said case frequency was not allocated to the customer, the link was being operated in open bandwidth. The witness further explained that he calculated the loss after obtaining the call duration data of the 177 owned numbers, which were used in illegal internet telephony from the date of activation of these numbers to the date whereof raid was conducted at the premises. The witness was cross examined and discharged.
11. The third witness to depose was Mr. Sarvendra Singh, Deputy Director General (Telecom Enforcement & Resource Monitoring), DOT, who as PW3 stated, that on 2.9.2003 in the afternoon he was called by Special Cell of Delhi to participate in a joint inspection to establish the illegal setups being run by illegal use of telephone numbers, of which they had prior information. He then joined the raid. Besides him, GS Sharma from VSNL and Ashish Aggarwal had also joined the same, apart from the police of Special Cell. They all went to H No. 33, West Punjabi Bagh. Accused Amanpreet Baweja, Sarabhjeet Singh and another person named Sunny were also there.
State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 9/27During the inspection, they found a big satellite antenna with transmitter on the rooftop. Multiplexer units and IP packetiser, radio modem and other sophisticated equipment and mobile phones were found interconnected making an illegal telephone exchange, which was receiving international calls through satellite antenna and those calls were distributed through mobile phones. This setup was not only causing revenue loss for the Government, but also posed a security threat, as these calls were beyond monitoring. He stated further that during this inspection, they also got to know about another such setup in Noida. He identified his signatures on list of mobile numbers prepared Ex PW1/H, inspection report and layout diagram Ex PW1/F and Ex PW1/G. The calls were being made automatically which were being received through satellite antenna from abroad. Accused Om Prakash stated that the owner of the setup was Amanpreet Baweja. The case property was labelled as Ex P1. This witness was cross examined at length and discharged.
12. The fourth witness to enter the witness box was Retired SI Mohd Tariq (PW 4). He proved the endorsement on the rukka Ex PW4/A and the FIR Ex PW4/B (OSR). Despite opportunity, he was not cross examined. The fifth witness to depose was SI Jadgish. He stated as PW5 that he joined the investigation with the team led by Inspector Govind Sharma accompanied by SI Sanjay Dutt, SI Harender, SI Jai Prakash, ASI Vikram. They reached the Punjabi Bagh Restaurant at around 2 :30 PM, where they met with the source informer. Two persons identified by the informer reached the spot in their vehicles. They then proceeded in their respective vehicles to the address in Punjabi Bagh, where they were followed by the team. Upon reaching State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 10/27 the spot and seeing the set-up, SI Sanjay Dutt called GS Sharma to the spot, who with his team carried out the inspection and prepared the report. SI Sanjay prepared the tehrir and handed over the same for registration of the FIR. The witness was cross examined and discharged. The sixth witness to depose was Mr. Govind Sharma (Retired ACP). He stated as PW6 that on 2.9.2003, he was posted as Inspector. He along with Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma, SI Sanjay Dutt and other police officials departed from the office at about 1:30 PM and reached the restaurant, At around 3 PM Accused Sarabhjeet came to the spot and 5 minutes thereafter Accused Amanpreet Baweja reached the spot. They then proceeded to the Punjabi Bagh address, where the raid was conducted and the illegal setup was found. The officials of VSNL and DOT prepared the inspection report and diagram and handed over the same to the IO SI Sanjay Dutt. He further deposed stating that on interrogation of the Accused Amanpreet Baweja and Sarabhjeet, the team learnt that another similar set-up was bring operated in Noida, for which the team then proceeded. Accused Om Prakash was found present in the room at the roof of the property in Noida. The witness proved the arrest memo of Accused Om Prakash EX PW6/A, seizure memo of 63 mobile and articles of illegal set up (14) EX PW1/I. The witness was cross examined and discharged.
13. The seventh witness to depose was Retired SI Harender Singh, who stated while being examined as PW7 that on 2.9.2003 he was posted as Sub-Inspector at Special Cell, when he along with SI Sanjay Dutt, Inspector Lalit Mohan Negi, Inspector Govind Sharma, SI Jai Krishan and HC Jagdeesh left the office of Special Cell in two private State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 11/27 vehicles and reached a restaurant named McDonalds in the West Punjabi Bagh area at about 2:20 PM. One informer met SI Sanjay Dutt and informed him regarding the Accused persons and their presence. After briefing by SI Sanjay Dutt, all the staff got deployed nearby at the locations. At around 3:00 PM, one golden colored Honda City Car came there and Accused Sarabjeet Singh Chaddha was found driving the same as informed by the secret informer to SI Sanjay Dutt. After 5 minutes, another silver colored Honda City Car came to the spot and the secret informer alerted SI Sanjay Dutt that the Accused Amanpreet Baweja was driving the same. The two stopped, deboarded, had a conversation and then headed towards Punjabi Bagh West in their respective vehicles. The team followed them and both parked their vehicles at the spot. As per directions of the IO/ SI Sanjay Dutt, raid was conducted at the said house at the second floor, where a setup of an illegal telephone exchange was found. The above two Accused along with the third Accused Rakesh were found there. Accused Amanpreet Baweja also led the team to his car disclosing there were Hutch SIM Cards in his bag in car dickey and also made disclosures about another such illegal set up in Noida. The witness proved the arrest memos of Accused Amanpreet Baweja, Rakesh Sidhu and Sarabjeet Singh Chadha as Ex PW7/1 to Ex PW7/3 and their personal search memos as Ex PW7/4 to Ex PW7/6. He also proved the seizure memo of the SIM Cards as Ex PW7/10. Accused Sarabjeet facilitated recovery of 40 hutch SIM Cards, which were seized vide memo Ex PW7/11. While proceeding to the other place in Noida, Accused Sarabjeet experienced a health issue. He was thus sent to the hospital. The team reached the second spot at Sector 18 State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 12/27 Noida, where the concerned building was named as 'Bansal'. The team then reached the rooftop, where they found Accused Om Prakash and a similar set up as in Punjabi Bagh. The witness proved the seizure memos of both the cars as Ex PW7/15 and Ex PW7/16. This witness was also cross examined and discharged.
14. The eighth witness to be examined was ACP Sanjay Dutt, who while deposing as PW8 stated that on 6.8.2003, he was posted as Sub- Inspector at Special Cell, when a complaint was received from Mr. GS Sharma, Manager Vigilance, VSNL, regarding illegal running of telephone exchanges, using local mobile numbers, by terminating of international calls on local mobile numbers. The Complaint was thoroughly verified and it was revealed that two illegal setups were functional (at Punjabi Bagh and Noida), and it was Accused Amanpreet Baweja who was running the same. The witness deposed on the similar lines further as PW7 about their arrival at the Punjabi Bagh address. He stated that at around 4:50 PM, the officials from VSNL, including the Complainant and Sarvendra Singh Director Vigilance VSNL and Mr. Ashish Aggarwal Senior Engineer VSNL reached the spot. They carried out the inspection and informed that the setup was being used to receive international calls by-passing the authorized ILD operators. Upon disclosures made by Accused Amanpreet Baweja and Sarabhjeet Singh, the team after investigation at the first stop, as detailed by PW7, proceeded to the Noida address. Accused Om Prakash was found there operating the set up. The witness also stated that during investigation, the SIM Cards recovered and seized in the entire set up were found to be issued in the name of a Company M/s King Transport and on enquiry one person named State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 13/27 Gurcharan Singh was examined, who told that he was running the said Company. He further disclosed that Accused Amanpreet Baweja and Sarabjeet had met him asking for the SIM cards for usage in running a call centre. He procured them and handed over to them against commission. The witness mentioned further that he had sought the CDR/ SDR of the 124 recovered SIM Cards, from the service provider which was provided to him in a floppy (the letter seeking the information was tendered in evidence and labelled as Ex PW8/2). He also proved the letter dated 8.4.2004 (Ex PW8/3), by which details of the seized SIM Cards were sought, along with the loss calculation data/ report received vide letter dated 2.6.2004 (Ex PW2/D4) and details on clarification sought, obtained vide letter dated 12/13.8.2004 (Ex PW2/B).
15. The next witness examined by the Prosecution was Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, who deposed as PW9. The witness stated in his examination in chief that on 2.9.2003, he was working as Senior Engineer at VSNL. On that day, he had asked PW1 to accompany him for a meeting with Special Cell, with the follow up proceeding for a planned raid at Punjabi Bagh address. He identified his signatures on the diagram Ex PW1/C, inspection report Ex PW1/B, seizure memo of the seized articles Ex PW1/D. He thereafter stated he was informed of another similar set up in Noida. Having proceeded there and conducted the inspection and formalities, the witness then proved the diagram of the set up there as Ex PW1/G, inspection report Ex PW1/F and the seizure of dismantled equipment Ex PW1/I. The last witness (PW 10) examined was Mr. Ajit Singh, Alternate Nodal Officer Vodafone. He produced the letter/ report State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 14/27 concerning mobile numbers sought by the IO, according to which the details were not available with the Company. He too was cross examined and discharged.
16. The Prosecution thereafter closed its evidence.
STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
17. The Accused persons were confronted with the entire incriminating evidence on record. They refuted the evidence, claiming false implication. They denied any connection either with the premises raided or the equipment/ exchange allegedly found running. Accused Amanpreet Baweja stated that he had been apprehended by the police on his visit to India prior to 2.9.2003 from the Hotel ITC Maurya and that the Co-Accused Sarabjeet Chaddha is his family friend for the last two generations. He had come to India to meet his other relatives. Accused Sarabhjeet Singh stated that he had no connection with the equipment, SIM Cards or the premises where the alleged set up was found except that House No. 33 Punjabi Bagh West belonged to his father-in-law, but he never lived there. Accused Rakesh Sidhu also denied any connection, except for stating that he was residing at House no. 33 as a tenant at the Second floor ( Barsati room). Accused Om Prakash stated that he too had no connection with the exchange, nor was skilled or competent to operate it. He only added by saying that the illegal exchange was being run from the terrace of the building in which the restaurant by the name of Super Star was situated, where he worked.
State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 15/2718. Out of the four Accused persons, only Accused Om Prakash led defence evidence. He examined a witness Ramesh Singh as DW1. The witness stated that ever since he joined the restaurant Super Star at the Ansals Fortune Arcade Sector 18 Noida (the property, where the second raid was conducted), he was working as a Manager there. He tendered in evidence the offer of joining letter dated 25.10.2001 and letter of appointment dated 1.11.2001 (Ex DW1/2 and Ex DW1/3) for Accused Om Prakash and statement of account issued by the HR department (Ex DW1/4), stating that the Accused was employed with them since 2001 till 2014 and that he also worked with the deponent as a Maintenance Assistant (AC Mechanic) till 2014, tending to the outdoor AC units being located at the roof. The witness was cross examined at length by the Ld. APP for State and discharged.
19. Final arguments were heard. Record has been perused carefully.
SUBMISSIONS AND APPRAISAL
20. The principle of law as regards the 'onus to prove' in a criminal trial resting on the Prosecution as observed in Harbhajan Singh v State of Punjab [ 1965 SCR (3) 235] is as under:
"It must be remembered that basically, the original onus never shifts and the prosecution has at all stages of the case, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt."State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 16/27
21. Before venturing into the detailed analysis of evidence and discussion thereon, it is essential to bear in mind certain basic expressions under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the basic ingredients of the offences for which the Accused have been charged. The relevant provisions are as under.
(i) Section 3 (1AA) of the Telegraph Act defines 'Telegraph' as an appliance, instrument, material or apparatus used or capable of use for transmission or reception of signals, writing, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, visual or other electro-magnetic emissions, Radio waves or Hertzian waves, galvanic, electric or magnetic means.
(ii) Section 3 (4) of the Telegraph Act defines the expression 'Telegraph line' as denoting a wire or wires used for the purpose of telegraph, with any casing, coating, tube or pipe enclosing the same, and any appliances and apparatus connected therewith for the purpose of fixing or insulating the same.
(iii) Section 4 of the Telegraph Act provides for 'exclusive privilege with the Central Government of establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs, subject to it further granting licence, on certain conditions and against consideration as it may stipulate, for establishing, maintaining or working a telegraph in India'.
(iv) Section 20 and Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act read as under:
"Section 20 - Establishing, maintaining or working unauthorized telegraph : If any person establishes, maintains or works a telegraph within India in contravention of the State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 17/27 provisions of Section 4 or otherwise than as permitted by rules made under that section, he shall be punished, if the telegraph is a wireless telegraph, with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both and in any other case, with a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.
Section 25- Intentionally damaging or tampering with telegraphs - If any person , intending -
(a) To prevent or obstruct the transmission or delivery of any message or
(b) To intercept or to acquaint himself with the contents of any message or
(c) To commit mischief, damages, removes, tampers with or touches any battery, machinery, telegraph lines, post or other thing whatever being part of or used in or about any telegraph or in working thereof, he shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or both.
(v) Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of 'cheating' in the following terms :
"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 18/27
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."
22. The basic premise of the case of the Prosecution in the present matter is the complaint lodged by PW1 concerning illegal set up of international telephony/ call forwarding working at some location at Delhi by illegal usage of GSM numbers of Hutch Telecom Operators, which was being used to by-pass the ILDOs, causing loss to the Government and also posing a security threat. The Prosecution has set out a case against the Accused persons, that they had in concert cheated the licenced operators/ in effect the Government, by maintaining and operating the twin illegal set ups of telephone exchanges at Delhi and Noida, without any licence, which were detected upon inspections carried out in joint operation by the Special Police with the VSNL/ DOT experts on 2/3.9.2003 upon the receipt of complaint Ex PW1/A and subsequent verification/ inquiry by the police. Largescale equipment with mobiles and SIM Cards were found at the two spots, leading to seizures and arrest of the Accused persons. While Accused Amanpreet Baweja, Sarabjeet Singh Chadha and Rakesh Sidhu @ Sunny were arrested from the Punjabi Bagh address in Delhi, where the first raid was conducted, upon the said Accused making certain disclosures of a similar set-up in Noida, the team also arrested Accused Om Prakash from the second spot at Noida.
23. While the Prosecution has asserted having brought home the charges against the Accused persons on the anvil of test of proof beyond all reasonable doubts, in view of the recovery and seizure of an energized equipment made from the premises under the control and State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 19/27 occupation of the Accused persons at Delhi and Noida, which were being used for switching of international calls through GSM Cards, into local calls illegally, the Ld. Defence Counsels have asserted that the case of the Prosecution is riddled with disparities and contradictions and to be based on a weak foundation, without any verification of basic facts, to confirm complicity of the Accused as alleged.
24. While the arrest and seizure memos have been proved, the very basis of the complaint and the complete narration of events are required to be considered holistically to ascertain if the Prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts or not. The careful and thorough perusal of the testimonies and the material on record is indicative of the case as set out being replete with contradictions, vagueness and lack of complete background verification of the most fundamental facts. The detailed reasons for the above observation are as under.
25. To begin with, the Defence has vociferously argued that the complaint has been lodged without any authorization from VSNL (taken over by TATA Communications) at the relevant time having been placed on record. In this regard the testimony of PW1 is vague and essentially suggestive of the authority not being backed by any express authorization for filing of the complaint, the record being devoid of any such proof. The Ld. Defence Counsels have also questioned the requisite authority with the VSNL/ technical experts who proceeded to inspect and effect seizures from the two sites involved, without being authorized under a formal Notification, to be competent to carry out the same. To this, the witnesses have stated State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 20/27 that they only accompanied the police officials as experts and it was the police team that led the inspection and carried out the same at the two places. The law laid down in Ramakrishna Dish Antenna System v Dy. Supdt. Of Police Markapur [ Writ Appeal No. 17248/1988] by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana underscores that under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, any gazetted officer of Central Government authorised by it, by general or special order may, if he has reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence, may enter or inspect premises as per law. There is no such authorisation on record in the present case, nor any clear explanation for want of the same tendered.
26. It is the case of the Prosecution that the basis of the complaint with respect to the GSM phone numbers was the 'source information'. PW1 in his testimony has acknowledged that no verification of details of subscribers was done by him, nor were any names of subscribers given either after lodging of the complaint. He has also admitted that between 6.8.2003 till 2.9.2003 i.e. the date of inspection/ raid, the details of call records of the numbers mentioned in the complaint were also not obtained. As regards the equipment seized from the two spots of inspection, while PW3 has in his testimony vaguely stated that 'to his knowledge', the same were not TEC approved, witness PW1 has not made any claim of sending of the seized equipment to TEC seeking their opinion with respect to the approval/ legality or otherwise of the usage of the same, which was most fundamental for verification of the claims/ case. Furthermore, the testimony of PW1 further reveals that no written communication was sent to the service provider either seeking details of the State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 21/27 subscribers/ calls made on the system, which verification/ procuring of details became utmost essential, especially in the wake of there being no complaint from the service provider/ Vodafone (earlier Hutch) or Airtel in respect of any SIM.
27. Further, the record of evidence is also found to be full of inconsistencies and contradictions which go to the root and raise a cloud over the manner in which the events unfolded as projected. It is pertinent to note that while PW6 stated that the entire action of the raids ensued not on the basis of any secret information, but on the basis of a complaint received of an illegal setup being run (on inquiry done prior to the inspection by SI Sanjay Dutt), PW7 on the other hand, while deposing has flagged the fact of participation of a secret informer. At the same time, witness PW9 has pleaded ignorance about a secret informer accompanying the team. Surprisingly, witness PW9 though claiming to have participated in the exercise also turns oblivious to the whole proceedings being preceded by a formal complaint. Additionally, as regards the multiple contradictions noticed while sifting the evidence, that have gone unexplained, while PW1 claimed he went directly at 4:30 PM to the spot of inspection at Punjabi Bagh, not accompanied by the police team, PW3 had specifically stated that he along with the other members had accompanied the police to the spot. PW4 at the same time stated that none of the officials from VSNL accompanied the raiding team.
28. The Defence has asserted that Accused Om Prakash was only an employee in the Super Star restaurant running from the property at Noida, and would serve as an AC Mechanic and no more, the Prosecution's case against him is specific on the claim of he virtually State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 22/27 being incharge of the second set up, having in his possession the key of the premises and thus an active participant. However, the testimonies of the witnesses PW3 and PW8 also seem to give different shades to his probable role, also suggesting of the case of the Prosecution again not showing any consistency or conclusiveness. While witness PW3 has stated that Accused Om Prakash was present at the Noida address and was manning the setup, PW8 on the other hand has stated that he was operating the same. The testimonies of the witnesses who were present at the spot, and their accounts are of prime most consideration in cases as the one at hand, as it is their narration of events which would either fortify the case or break the same if lacking in credit worthiness. Here, the witnesses PW3 and PW8 themselves have not clearly defined the role of Accused Om Prakash, of being present at the second premises, either as a caretaker or as the one who was operating the system, the latter stance if taken, would show an escalated participation, which has not been done.
29. There is also a fundamental difference in the claims as to when the team learnt about the second place of inspection. While other witnesses, especially technical officials stated that it was during investigation that they got to know about another set up at Noida, witness PW8 has stated that it was during the initial stage upon receipt of complaint, that they were already aware of there being two set-ups, it not coming across as surprise. Further in the same context contrary to the versions of other Prosecution witnesses, of the team having proceeded the same day as that of the first inspection to Noida address, PW9 has refuted the claim, stating that after a break, it was State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 23/27 the next day that he was called to accompany for another raid at Noida.
30. The inspecting team has also clearly not bothered to gain clarity over the gathering of complete material facts as above highlighted. For instance, PW1 has stated that he was not clear as to whether Accused Amanpreet Baweja or Sarabjeet Singh Chaddha were owners of the premises or not and it was only PW8 who claims to have made inquiries about the premises being a tenanted one. It is only at the stage of recording of statement of the Accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that it comes to the fore that the property at Punjabi Bagh was taken on rent by Accused Rakesh from the father in law of Accused Sarabjeet. Further it is a matter of record that the owner of the property from the premises of which the first setup was found running, has also not been examined.
31. As regards the calculation of the loss and the report relied upon, it is pertinent to note that while witness PW2 stated that he was not given the call details with respect to the calls received on 177 SIM numbers, witness PW8 affirmed that the call details of the GSM numbers were inquired into and the same were given to the DOT officials for loss calculation. The call details were statedly made the basis of notional loss calculation report (Ex PW2/A). However, it has come in evidence of PW2 that the CD provided to him was not having any call details with respect to the calls received on 177 SIM Cards, in order to substantiate that they were international calls. He affirmed that the loss was calculated on the basis of numbers, call duration in seconds. and pre-paid status/ subscription, indicating that it was only a notional loss assessment and not providing an index of State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 24/27 the actual loss. Crucially, there is no clear evidence confirming that the calls switched/ routed through the mechanism found in place were international calls. Witness PW1 duly acknowledged in his testimony that he did not file any document or details in support of or substantiating that all the calls made through the SIM Cards in question were international calls. PW4 stated that he could not confirm if any inquiry was made to ascertain if the calls were incoming or outgoing. While PW7 does state in his cross examination that Accused Rakesh present at the first place of inspection at Punjabi Bagh had no headphones and was "just converting international calls into local calls", he could however not clarify as to how it was being done/ switched. Similar lapse is noticed with respect to the equipment seized. PW3 has stated in his testimony that though he had not checked if the equipment seized were TEC approved, he asserted that their illegal use was confirmed on the basis of connectivity with satellite antenna and the mobile connections receiving international calls and posting to domestic network as local calls. This however does not save the case of the Prosecution, as there is neither any verification of subscriber details or extensive check on the Call Detail Records, nor any confirmation as acknowledged of the calls being international calls. It is equally glaring to note that witness PW2 has stated that in his testimony that the "illegal use of frequency" could not be confirmed either at the relevant stage.
32. Lastly, despite there being public presence at both the sites, no independent witness has been made a part of the raid. No notice has been served to make a public witness join the probe nor any efforts made in this regard, despite PW3 acknowledging in his evidence that State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 25/27 members of public had gathered at the spot. In the specific context of the offences involved in the present case, the Prosecution has clearly failed to establish 'beyond all reasonable doubts', the connection of the Accused persons with the equipment, as also of it being a part of a set-up, energized and as being used in breach of the provisions (Sections 4 and 20) of the Telegraph Act. The nature of calls, the subscriber details, the route of the calls, the Call Details etc., all being essential to determine the nature of usage of the frequency have not been ascertained. Simply recovering the equipment or the SIM Cards, could at best be indicative of a phase 'preparatory' and not beyond. There is no conclusive proof either of usage of the setups as suggested nor of any actual wrongful loss suffered by the registered licence holders/ service providers or to the Government, the basic ingredients of the offence of cheating not being met. There is also no element of mischief established by evidence either, in terms of Section 25 (Clause c) of the Telegraph Act, the other clauses not getting attracted in the present case itself at all.
CONCLUSION
33. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is held that the Prosecution has not been able to bring home the allegations against the Accused persons, for want of credible, cogent and uncontroverted evidence led by the State. The Accused persons are, therefore, acquitted of all charges. As requested by them, their sureties being agreeable, the bail bonds furnished by them for duration of the trial are accepted as bail bonds for purposes of Section 437A CrPC.
State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 26/2734. Copy of this judgment pronounced and dictated in open court be provided to the Accused persons free of cost.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 27.09.2025 Digitally signed by SHRIYA SHRIYA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date:
2025.10.10 18:10:57 +0530 (SHRIYA AGRAWAL) CJM NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI State Vs. Amanpreet Baweja & Ors FIR No. 71/2003 PS: Special Cell Page No. 27/27