Delhi District Court
Charanjeet Wadhawan vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 2 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. REETESH SINGH, ASJ-02/FTC
NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI
Crl. Revision No. 113/2014
I.D. No 02403R0239632014
1. Charanjeet Wadhawan,
S/o Late Sh. Ram Lal Wadhawan
R/o B-86 (B-89), Sector-14,
Noida (UP).
2. Pankaj Wadhawan,
S/o Charanjeet Wadhawan,
R/o B-86 (B-89), Sector-14,
Noida (UP).
...Petitioners
VERSUS
STATE (NCT of Delhi)
... Respondent
Date of institution of the case : 16.12.2014
Date of reservation of orders : 26.05.2015
Date of announcement of orders : 02.06.2015
ORDER
1. This revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 21.05.2010 by which the Ld. Trial Court has framed charges under Sections 420, 379, 120-B IPC and 4, 20, 25 of Indian Telegraph Act against the petitioners / accused persons.
Charanjeet Wadhawan & Ors. vs. State CR No. 113/2014 1/4
2. It may be noted that this revision petition was originally filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and was registered as Crl. Revision Petition No. 449 of 2010. By order dated 05.12.2004, the Hon'ble High Court observed that the impugned order had been passed by the Court of CMM and the next hierarchical Court was of the Sessions Judge. The said revision petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court and to file of the revision petition was directed to be remitted to the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts to be assigned to the Court of competent jurisdiction. The file of the revision petition was thereafter assigned to this Court for disposal.
3. Before this Court, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners had argued that although charges have been framed against Anand Swaroop Wadhawan, Anoop Wadhawan, Charanjeet Lal Wadhawan and Pankaj Wadhawan, the present revision petition has been preferred only by Charanjeet Lal Wadhawan and Pankaj Wadhawan who are father and son. Counsel for the petitioners had argued that there is no direct evidence against the petitioners. The premises at Rohini and Madhu Vihar were taken on record by Anoop Wadhawan. There was no evidence of any calls originating from outside the country and no records in the form of call details of any particular international call diverted from use of VOIP was on record. There was no evidence of flow of internet data and therefore the petitioners were entitled to be discharged.
4. The FIR was registered on a complaint of the VSNL dated 29.05.2002 as per which accused Anand Wadhawan had taken three ISDN lines at Rohini records of which revealed that they were being Charanjeet Wadhawan & Ors. vs. State CR No. 113/2014 2/4 used for illegal international telephony. Large number of outgoing calls were being generated which were international calls being made to various subscribers in Delhi. Verification from these subscribers revealed that they had received international calls. It was also found about 41000 calls have been made from this network bypassing the legal gateway of VSNL, causing loss to the Government.
5. As per the charge-sheet, the premises at Rohini was raided by a joint team of VSNL and Special Cell of Delhi Police. It was found that three ISDN Lines of MTNL were terminated on ASCOM Modems, then to INNOVA Phone Multiplexer Packetiser and a Dialer Combined Unit which was connected to a personal computer for configuration of the set up. It was found to be functional with flow of telephone traffic of international calls being received in the form of internet packets from one ISDN line and thereafter switched though two remaining ISDN lines with the help of the said equipment. Charanjeet Lal Wadhawan, Anoop Wadhawan and Pankaj Wadhawan were present at the site and found to be running the said set up. They disclosed that they were running another set up at Madhu Vihar, Patpar Ganj, Delhi. Similar set up was found operating at Madhu Vihar, Patpar Ganj, Delhi.
6. It is also to be noted that after framing of charge, G.S. Sharma, author of the complaint dated 29.05.2002 has already been examined in chief in part as PW1. He has named the present petitioners as being found at the premises at Rohini to be operating the network and identified them in Court.
7. In these facts and circumstances, there is sufficient material on record to frame charges against the petitioners. No ground Charanjeet Wadhawan & Ors. vs. State CR No. 113/2014 3/4 is made out to interfere with the impugned order by which the charges have been framed against them.
8. TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (REETESH SINGH)
on 2nd June, 2015 ASJ-02/FTC, PHC/NDD
02.06.2015
Charanjeet Wadhawan & Ors. vs. State
CR No. 113/2014 4/4