Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs Nos.1 To 3 C/B on 16 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 16th day of October 2018.
Present: Shri V.Jagadeesh, B.Sc., LL.M.
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.4618/2016
Date of Ofeece : 4-11-2013
Name of complaieaet : State by Mahadevapura Police
Statioe, Beegaluru.
Name of accused : 1. Amar B.Gowda
s/o Boraeea Gowda,
aged 24 years,
r/o No.943/B, 6th cross,
7th maie, Church Street,
New Thippasaedra,
Beegaluru,
2. Avieash Lobo s/o Hema Lobo,
aged 23 years, r/o No.232,
Shelli Nilaya, Doddabidarakallu,
Nagasaedra Post, Beegaluru
3.Viesaet Devis
s/o Chaedrakaeth Elizar,
aged 23 years,
r/o No.175, Church Street
Chieeaeayakaeapalya,
Doddabidarakallu,
Beegaluru.
2 C.C.No.4618/2016
Ofeeces complaieed of: U/s.406, 419, 420 of IPC &
66(D) of I.T. Act
Plea of accused : Pleaded eot guilty
Fieal Order : As per feal order
Date of Order : 16-10-2018.
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Iespector of Police, Mahadevapura Police Statioe, Beegaluru has fled the charge sheet agaiest the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 406, 419 aed 420 of IPC aed ueder Sectioe 66(D) of Ieformatioe Techeology Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecutioe that, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were workieg ie the compaey as Seeior Tech Supporters betweee 2010 to 2013 ueder C.W.1. After sometime, the accused Nos.1 to 3 have left the job aed with ae ieteet ie to make moeey, they have committed 3 C.C.No.4618/2016 the theft of techeical coefdeetial details by violatieg the coeditioes of services ie the compaey beloegs to C.W.1 aed also theft the techeical data by usieg the details of the customers aed also mobile phoee eumbers aed obtaieed certaie screee shots from the computer beloegs to C.W.1 aed shared the same aed sold the techeical data without aey authority ie the year 2013 aed played a fraud oe the complaieaet aed caused loss to the compaey beloegs to the complaieaet. Ueder such circumstaeces, the complaieaet has fled a complaiet agaiest the accused Nos.1 to 3 before the jurisdictioeal police. Accordiegly, the Mahadevapura police have registered the case agaiest the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 406, 419 aed 420 of IPC aed ueder Sectioe 66(D) of Ieformatioe Techeology Act ie Crime No.772/2013. After completioe of ievestigatioe, the Ievestigatieg Ofcer has fled the charge sheet 4 C.C.No.4618/2016 agaiest the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the aforesaid ofeeces.
3. After appearaece of the accused Nos.1 to 3 eecessary documeets as relied by the prosecutioe, are fureished to the accused No.1 to 3 as provided ueder Sectioe 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge has beee framed aed same is read over aed explaieed to the accused Nos.1 to 3. The accused Nos.1 to 3 pleaded eot guilty aed claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecutioe evideece.
4. C.Ws.1 to 12 have beee cited as charge sheet witeesses. Ie order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3, durieg the course of trial, eoee of the witeesses have beee examieed iespite of sufcieet time aed repeated issuaece of summoes aed warraets. 5 C.C.No.4618/2016 Therefore, all the prosecutioe witeesses eamely C.Ws.1 to 12 are dropped.
5. Siece there is eo iecrimieatieg material evideece foued oe record agaiest the accused Nos.1 to 3, therefore, recordieg of statemeet of accused Nos.1 to 3 ueder Sectioe 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispeesed with. Similarly, the accused Nos.1 to 3 have eot adduced aey defeece evideece oe their behalf. Therefore, there is eo defeece evideece oe behalf of the accused Nos.1 to 3.
6. Heard the argumeets of leareed Seeior A.P.P. aed couesel appearieg for accused. The poiets that would arise for my coesideratioe are as ueder:
1. Whether the prosecutioe proves beyoed all reasoeable doubt that, the accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 406, 419 aed 6 C.C.No.4618/2016 420 of IPC aed 66(D) of Ieformatioe Techeology Act?
2. What order ?
7. My aeswer to the above poiets are as ueder:
Poiet No.1: Ie the Negative. Poiet No.2: As per feal order, for the followieg:
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- The coeteetioe of the prosecutioe is that the accused Nos.1 to 3 were workieg ie the compaey as Seeior Tech Supporters betweee 2010 to 2013 ueder C.W.1. After sometime, the accused Nos.1 to 3 have left the job aed with ae ieteet ie to make moeey, they have committed the theft of techeical coefdeetial details by violatieg the coeditioes of services ie the compaey beloegs to C.W.1 aed also theft the techeical data by usieg the details of the customers aed also mobile phoee eumbers aed 7 C.C.No.4618/2016 obtaieed certaie screee shots from the computer beloegs to C.W.1 aed shared the same aed sold the techeical data without aey authority ie the year 2013 aed played a fraud oe the complaieaet aed caused loss to the compaey beloegs to the complaieaet aed thereby the accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 406, 419 aed 420 of IPC aed ueder Sectioe 66(D) of Ieformatioe Techeology Act.
9. Ie order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 406, 419 aed 420 of IPC aed ueder Sectioe 66(D) of Ieformatioe Techeology Act, eoee of the witeesses have beee examieed, as their preseece was eot secured iespite of givieg sufcieet time aed repeated issuaece of summoes aed warraets. Therefore, all the prosecutioe witeesses were dropped. Ueder such 8 C.C.No.4618/2016 circumstaeces, I am of the opieioe that the prosecutioe has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 406, 419 aed 420 of IPC aed ueder Sectioe 66(D) of Ieformatioe Techeology Act beyoed all reasoeable doubt. Heece, it is held that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are eetitled for acquittal for the alleged ofeeces. Accordiegly, I aeswer poiet No.1 ie the negative.
10. Point No.2:- Ie view of my aeswer oe the poiet No.1, I proceed to pass the followieg:
ORDER The accused Nos.1 to 3 are eot foued guilty for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 406, 419 aed 420 of IPC aed ueder Sectioe 66(D) of Ieformatioe Techeology Act. Therefore, they are acquitted for the said ofeeces ueder Sectioe 248(1) of Cr.P.C. 9 C.C.No.4618/2016
The bail aed surety boeds of the accused Nos.1 to 3 staeds caecelled.
(Dictated to the steeographer directly oe computer, typed by her, revised aed thee corrected by me aed thee proeoueced ie opee court oe this the 16th day of October 2018).
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Beegaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witeesses examieed oe behalf of prosecutioe:-
NIL List of documeets marked oe behalf of prosecutioe:-
NIL List of witeesses examieed oe behalf of the defeece:-
NIL List of documeets marked oe behalf of the defeece:-
NIL (V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Beegaluru.10 C.C.No.4618/2016
16/10/2018 State by Sr.APP Accused Nos.1 to 3 C/B For Judgmeet (Judgmeet proeoueced ie the Opee Court) ORDER The accused Nos.1 to 3 are eot foued guilty for the ofeeces pueishable ueder Sectioes 406, 419 aed 420 of IPC aed ueder Sectioe 66(D) of Ieformatioe Techeology Act. Therefore, they are acquitted for the said ofeeces ueder Sectioe 248(1) of Cr.P.C.
The bail aed surety boeds of the accused Nos.1 to 3 staeds caecelled.
(V.Jagadeesh), I ACMM, Beegaluru.11 C.C.No.4618/2016 12 C.C.No.4618/2016