Delhi District Court
State vs Praveen Kumar on 21 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VIJAYSHREE RATHORE,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. Praveen Kumar
FIR No. : 987/2001
PS : Hauz Khas
U/s : 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA
JUDGMENT
A. Sl. No. of the Case 2032044/2016 DLST020000302002 B. Date of Commission of offence 28.11.2001 C. Date of FIR 28.11.2001 D. Date of charge-sheet 08.02.2002 E. Name of the complainant G.S. Sharma F. Name of the accused persons, their parentage 1) Praveen Kumar S/o Sh. S.N. Bansal R/o and residence Flat no. 502, Tower N-6, Jaypee Aman, Sector 151, Noida, UP.
2) Manjit Singh Oberoi S/o Late Sh. T.S. Oberoi, R/o H.No. 268, Sec. 35A, Chandigarh.
3) Anju Kapoor D/o Late Sh. A.S. Khanna, R/o C-4/140, Safdarjung Development Area, Delhi.
4) Ajit S/o Sh. Budh Singh (declared
absconder)
G. Offence complained of or proved 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and
3/6 IWTA
H. Date of framing of charges 03.03.2008
State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas
U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 1 of 36
I. Date of commencement of evidence 18.12.2017
J. Plea of the accused Not Guilty
K. Date on which judgment is reserved 06.09.2023
L. Final Order Acquitted
M. Date of Judgment 21.02.2024.
Brief facts of the present case
1. The case of prosecution arises out of complaint dt. 28.11.2001 of G.S. Sharma, Senior Vigilance Officer, VSNL that as per the monopolistic license granted by the Department of Telecommunications Government of India, VSNL is authorized to provide India's International telecommunication facilities such as international telephony, data, data leased lines, Video conferencing etc. These services are provided in consortium with DoT and MTNL. No other agency/party is authorized to indulge or put an operation for international voice telephony. Certain parties i.e. Suncore Software Development Center Ltd., C-5/32 Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi and M/s AAM Info ways Private Ltd. 17, Safdarjung Development Area, Opp. IIT Main Gate, New Delhi- 016 etc. are indulging into an illegal international voice telephony by taking an Internet Lease Line and connecting the same with ESSAR, Airtel and MTNL telephones through highly technical State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 2 of 36 equipments such as CAC Access Bank Voice Multiplexer, Neura Pacaketizer and Telular Fixed Cellular Units etc. Through this setup they illegally receive international voice calls, independently bypassing VSNL gateway and distribute the same to various subscribers in and around Delhi, thereby causing a huge revenue loss in terms of foreign exchange to the government of India including the VSNL & DoT and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves in conspiracy with their foreign counterparts. An organized racket of illegal international voice telephony has been operating at Room No 405, Shyama Inn, C-5/32, Safdarjung Development Area, Opp. IIT Main Gate, New Delhi- 016 in association with another company situated at C-17, Safdarjung Development Area, Opp. IIT Main Gate, New Delhi- 016. A radio antenna is installed and working at the rooftop of said location i.e. C- Safdarjung Development Area, Opp. IIT Main Gate, New Delhi-
016.This link is extended to Shyama Inn via a cable and unauthorized automatic Re-Switching of international voice calls are taking place through various cellular and MTNL phones including the following with the help of highly technical equipments like T-1 voice multiplexer of CAC make, Neura T-1 F200 ip packetizer and GSM 900 trans-receiver of TELULAR Corporation (USA) after being received through the internet leased line taken from Satyam Info ways Ltd., Sant nagar, New Delhi through various radio links. By establishing and operating the illegal telegraph in State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 3 of 36 violation of the law of India to cause huge wrongful loss to the tune of about Rs. 4 crores to the Govt. of India and have committed offences punishable under IPC, Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933.
2. On the basis of complaint FIR was registered. Raiding team was formed. Site C17, lower ground floor, Safdarjung Development Area was searched and premise C5, 3rd floor, SDA, New Delhi was also checked. Accused Ajit was found running premise C17, SDA Office and Praveen was found operating in room no. 405 of Shyama International guest house. 13 mobile connections were obtained from accused persons. Radio antenna and tower were also found installed on roof-top. Illegal equipments including cables from radio link passed through server were also found on the spot. Joint inspection report was prepared. Illegal equipments were seized. Photographs of the site were taken. Accused Ajit and Praveen were arrested. Documents pertaining to AAM Infoways were seized. Thereafter charge-sheet was filed against accused Ajit and Praveen for offence u/s 420/379/120B IPC, 4/20/20A/25 Indian Telegraph Act and Section 3/6 of Indian Wireless Telegraph Act. Accused Manjit Oberoi and Anju Kapoor were kept in column no.
12. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the case.
3. Vide order dated 04.09.2003 accused persons Ajit (not traceable) and Praveen were summoned in the case. Vide order dt. State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 4 of 36 27.03.2006 accused Manjit Oberoi and Anju Kapoor were also summoned in the case.
Framing of charge
4. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., vide order dated 03.03.2008 charge was framed against accused Manjit Singh Oberoi, Anju Kapoor, Praveen Kumar and Ajit for the offence u/s 420/379 IPC & 120 IPC and 4/20/20A/25 of Indian Telegraphic Act and Section 3/6 of Indian Wireless Telegraphic Act to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide order dt. 15.01.2024 accused Ajit was declared absconder and therefore the judgment is passed qua accused persons Praveen, Anju Kapoor and Manjit.
Prosecution Evidence
5. In support of its case, the prosecution had examined 8 witnesses. PW1 is Dinesh Chand, PW2 is Om Prakash, PW3 is G.S. Sharma, PW4 is K.K. Nayyar, PW5 is Ajit Singh Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone, PW6 is Retired ACP H.S. Gill, PW7 ACP Gurudev, PW8 is SI Giri Raj Singh.
6. PW1 Dinesh Chand had deposed in his testimony that in the year 2001, he was posted as Deputy Registrar of company, Delhi. He had further deposed that he had received a request from IO of the present case to supply certain documents which were State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 5 of 36 supplied by him alongwith letter Ex.PW1/A. He had further deposed that he supplied documents Ex.PW1/B which is the Certificate of Incorporation of Reliant Communication and Ex.PW1/C Form 32 regarding appointment of Directors in the complainant, Ex.PW1/D From No. 18 showing the regd. Office of the said company, Ex.PW1/E certificate of Incorporation of Ebiz Softell and Ex.PW1/F Form 32 regarding appointment of directors and Ex.PW1/G Form 18 showing the regd. Office of said company, Ex.PW1/H Certificate of commencement of business of AAM Infoways, Ex.PW1/I Form no. 18 showing regd. Office of the said company, Ex.PW1/J Form 32 regarding appointment of Directors in the said company, Ex.PW1/O certificate of Incorporation of AAM Infoways, Ex.PW1/K form 29 regarding consent of named persons to become Director in the company name in the certificate. He had further deposed that Ex.PW1/L is certificate of Incorporation of Best Phone Technologies Ex.PW1/M Form 32 regarding appointment of Directors in the said company and Ex.PW1/N is Form 18 showing regd. Office of the said company.
7. PW2 Om Prakash had deposed in his testimony that in the year 2001, he was posted at Hauz Khas Telephone Exchange as Junior Telephone exchange and Safdarjung Development Area was under his jurisdiction. He had further deposed that the phone numbers 651-6746, 651-792, 6151-6749 and 656-2199 were opened at C-17. Registration form of phone number 651-6746 is State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 6 of 36 Ex.PW2/A, of phone number 651-792 is Ex.PW2/B, of phone number 6151-6749 is Ex.PW2/C and of phone number 656-2199 is Ex.PW2/D. He had further deposed that application form for telephone connected is Ex.PW2/E alongwith specimen signature sheet Ex.PW2/F and Form 60 is Ex.PW2/G, Authority letter dated 15.05.2001 is Ex.PW2/H and the same was filed along with application form is Ex.PW2/E for the purpose of obtaining connection. The witness had also brought on record of MTNL pertaining to phone no. 26562188 Ex.PW2/F, record pertaining to telephone no. 26516746 Ex.PW2/G and record pertaining to telephone no. 26516749 Ex.PW2/H and the record pertaining to telephone no. 26517292 Ex.PW2/I.
8. PW 3 G.S. Sharma had deposed in his testimony that in the year 2001, he was posted as Sr. Officer Vigilance at VSNL. He had further deposed that he lodged complaint Ex. PW3/A(colly) in the Special Cell Delhi Police PS Lodhi colony regarding functioning cell of illegal telephone exchange for switching of international calls. He had further deposed that thereafter, a raiding team was formed along with the officers of the Delhi Police including Inspector HS Gill and SI Gurdev Singh and others that included Sarvendra Singh, Director Vigilance, KK Nayyar AVO, MTNL and Ashish Kumar Agarwal, Engineer of VSNL. He had further deposed that the team conducted joint inspection at C-17, Safdurjung development area on ground floor. He had further State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 7 of 36 deposed that in this building, on the roof top a radio antenna was installed, input from it was brought to a CISCO 6200 Router in the room in C-17, Safdurjung development area from where the input of internet lease line was further taken through over head cables to room number 405 hotel Shyama international, Safdurjung Development area where the ILL interfaced on Nuera Packatezir Unit and further to CAC Multiplexor on which 16 numbers of mobile numbers the sim of which was installed in GSM900 tellular transceiver and further 8 number of telephone lines of MTNL were also interfaced through the said ILL. He had further deposed that the entire set up was found operational and powered on and the traffic of international calls was running at the time of raid. He had further deposed that joint inspection report was prepared by the technical officers present in the team which is Ex. PW3/B(colly) along with setup lay out plan which is EX. PW3/C (colly). He had further deposed that thereafter, the equipment were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/D. He had further deposed that photographs of the premises were clicked which are Ex. P1 (colly). PW3 G.S. Sharma further deposed in his testimony that the set up which was found was used for illegally switching of international incoming calls thereby causing huge loss of revenue to the Government of India, Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and MTNL. He had further deposed that the international calls were brought in this case in the form of internet packets and being depacketised and demultiplex through State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 8 of 36 Neura Packetisers and CAC Multiplexer Units and thereafter, being switched as a voice calls through 24 numbers of telephone i.e. 16 numbers vodafone sim cards and 18 numbers of MTNL telephone lines connected on said CAC Multiplexer Units. He had further deposed that normally, when any international call is brought in the country it lands on the international gateway of international long distance operator of telecome service i.e. Videsh Sanchar Nigem Ltd at that time and its accounting is done by the ILD Operator for international calls and thereafter, the call is handed over to NLDO and basic operator who also handles the same as an international call and all of them shares revenue of such international calls. He had further deposed that in this case, since the calls were coming in the garb of internet packet its metering was not done as an international call hence, government was getting revenue only as per local call as was being switched through MTNL and Vodafone numbers. He had further deposed that further, this set up was causing threat to security of nation since, it was beyond the scope of law full interception.
9. PW4 K.K. Nayyar had deposed in his testimony that he has been retired as Sr. Sub Divisional Engineer, MTNL. On 28.11.2001, he was directed by the then General Manager (Vigilance) to assist the team of Department of Telecom (DOT) and VSNL in an inspection. He had further deposed that he went to the VSNL office, Gol market Connaught place and met G.S. Sharma, State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 9 of 36 Vigilance officer VSNL from there he alongwith GS Sharma, Ashish Aggarwal went to Lodhi Road police station and they met with DOT Director Sh. Sarvender Singh who was also present at the PS. He had further deposed that then they met the police officer Mr Gill and Gurdev and GS Sharma gave one complaint to IO. He had further deposed that from there, all of them went to C-17, Safardjung Development area. He had further deposed that at that place, they met one Ajeet Singh and inspection was carried out in the premises. He had further deposed that during inspection, a dish-antenna on terrace was found. He had further deposed that the technical team of the VSNL Sh GS Sharma and Ashish Aggarwal carried out the technical inspection. He had further deposed that it was an internet lease line from Satyam Info. He had further deposed that the technical team further carried out the check up and found that this dish antenna was further extended through a cable to Shyam International at C-5/32 Safardjung Development area. He had further deposed that the technical team further carried out the inspection and found that cable was connected to an equipment and also 8 lines from MTNL landlines and 16 mobile lines also at C- 5/32. He had further deposed that the team further carried out the inspection and found that international calls were being forwarded from the equipment. He had further deposed that the equipment photographs and the layout of the equipment was prepared by the technical team VSNL and the equipment were seized by the IO vide State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 10 of 36 seizure memo Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B.
10. PW 5 Ajit Singh, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd had deposed in his testimony that as per the guidelines of DOT (Department of Tele-communication), the CAF of mobile numbers i.e. 9811310853, 9811312962, 9811312941, 9811310851, 9811310859, 9811310855, 9811312936, 9811312918, 9811312943, 9811312960, 9811310857, 9811312938, 9811312932 and 9811312926 have been destroyed and no documents/CAFs are available in their office regarding the aforesaid mobile numbers.
11. PW6 Retired ACP H.S. Gill had deposed in his testimony that on 28.11.2001 he was posted as Inspector at Special Cell, Lodhi colony and on that day, Sarvinder Singh director of Vigilance, Department of Tele Communication along with G.S. Sharma, Senior Vigilance Officer VSNL, Aashish Agarwal Senior Engineer VSNL and K.K. Nyer, Assistant Vigilance Officer, MTNL came to his office and submitted one complaint Ex.PW3/A (Colly) regarding illegal telephone exchange being run at C-5/32 Safdar Jung Development Area and C-17 Safdar Jung Development Area. He had further deposed that he discussed this complaint with senior officer and marked this complaint to SI Gurudev Singh for taking further necessary action. He had further deposed that a raid was conducted at the abovementioned places along with all the above mentioned officers and ASI Gajraj Singh, SI Gurudev Singh, ASI Nandlal and PW6. He had further deposed that at C-17 Safdar Jung State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 11 of 36 Development Area, Ajit Singh was found who told that he was the In- charge of companies namely AAM Infoways and Best Phone. He had further deposed that on checking by the above-mentioned technical officers, it was found that a radio antenna was affixed at the roof and wires from this premises were connected with Shyama International Inn, Safar Jung Development Area, room no. 405 where Praveen Kumar was found. He had further deposed that it was found that 16 mobile phones and 8 MTNL connections were there which were being operated by Praveen Kumar. He had further deposed that a joint inspection was carried out of both the premises which was signed by Sarvinder Singh, K.K. Nayer, Aashish Agarwal, K.K. Nayer, Ashish Agarwal, G.S. Sharma and PW 6 as well as SI Gurudev Singh which is Ex.PW3/B. He had further deposed that SI Gurudev Singh got the case registered and also took photographs from the spot. He had further deposed that accused Ajit and accused Praveen Kumar were interrogated by IO/SI Gurudev Singh and after interrogation, they were arrested. He had further deposed that IO recorded his statement. The witness identified accused Praveen Kumar in the court. The witness also identified 22 photographs taken from the spot i.e. Ex.P1 to Ex.P22.
12. PW7 ACP Gurudev Singh had deposed in his testimony that on 28.11.2001, Mr. G.S. Sharma, GM Vigilance, VSNL, Kalibari Marg, Delhi along with Sarvender Singh, Director DOT, K.K. Nayyar, AVO, MTNL and Aashish Mishra, Senior Engineer, State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 12 of 36 VSNL came to Special Cell Lodhi Colony alongwith a written complaint addressed to Insp. Special Cell Lodhi Colony Delhi. He had further deposed that the said complaint was discussed with ACP, Special Cell and thereafter the complaint was marked to him. He had further deposed that thereafter upon the instructions of Mr. H.S. Gill Insp. Special Cell, a raiding party was formed including ASI Nand Lal, ASI Gajraj Singh and PW7. He had further deposed that thereafter they left for Safdarjang development area at C-17, lower ground floor. He had further deposed that after reaching the spot, they checked the said premise where they found a lot of telephones, a computer, routers, packetizer, multi-plexers and one antenna on the roof in running condition. He had further deposed that the said premise had a board of a company name AAM Infoways Pvt Ltd. & Best Phone Technologies. He had further deposed that at the spot co-accused Ajit (deceased) and accused Praveen Kumar were present and were operating the systems. He had further deposed that upon interrogation of accused Ajit (deceased), it was found that another similar setup was running at Room no. 405, Shyama International Inn, C-5/32, Safdarjung Development area. He had further deposed that when they reached the said premise, a similar setup was found at the said premise. He had further deposed that both the spots were photographed through government approved photographers. He had further deposed that technical team involving G.S. Sharma, GM Vigilance, VSNL, Kalibari Marg, Delhi along State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 13 of 36 with Sarvender Singh, Director DOT, K.K. Nayyar, AVO, MTNL and Aish Mishra, Senior Engineer, VSNL alongwith him and Insp. inspected the technical equipments and prepared a joint inspection report Ex.PW3/B. He had further deposed that he prepared rukka vide Ex.PW7/A to register the case and sent the same through ASI Nand Lal to PS Hauz Khas. He had further deposed that he interrogated the accused Ajit (deceased) who told that he had taken the premise on rent through lease deed and he was the director of AAM Infoways Pvt Ltd. & Best Phone Technologies and Suncore Software Pvt Ltd. He had further deposed that he seized the technical equipment from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A and also seized the sim-cards vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. He had further deposed that he seized the antenna from the roof-top alongwith its routers and radio modem vide Ex.PW4/B. He had further deposed that he seized the lease deeds and commercial files produced by Officers of MTNL vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C. He had further deposed that accused persons were arrested vide arrest memos EX.PW7/D and Ex.PW7/E and their personal search was conducted vide personal search memos Ex.PW7/F and Ex.PW7/G. He had further deposed that thereafter he sent ASI Gajraj to deposit the case property at PS Hauz Khas. He had further deposed that thereafter he recorded the statements of all the witnesses in the investigation u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and thereafter they returned back to Special Cell Lodhi Colony, Delhi. He had further deposed that on State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 14 of 36 the next day i.e. 29.11.2001, accused persons were taken to Lajpat Nagar but nothing was found there. He had further deposed that the commercial files were picked up from the MTNL Exchange and were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/H. He had further deposed that disclosure statement of accused persons Ex.PW7/I and Ex.PW7/J were recorded. The witness identified the case property as Ex.P1 (colly). PW8 SI Gajraj Singh had also deposed in the same manner.
Statement of Accused
13. The examination of accused Praveen Kumar u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which accused Praveen Kumar stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the case and he is innocent as he was employee in the company and working from the last 6 months as computer typist for medical transcription and was posted and working at C-17, SDA. The police falsely implicated him in the present case.
14. The examination of accused Manjit Singh Oberoi u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which accused stated that he was one of the Directors in AAM Infoways and Best Phone Technologies. He was only a formal/dormant director and had no role in the day-to-day affairs of the said company. So far as the rest of the companies are concerned, he has no knowledge of the same. He had further stated that the antenna installed on the roof had a State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 15 of 36 valid licence for carrying out the business of medical transcription. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is innocent and was only a formal/dormant director in the two companies for carrying out the business of medical transcription and he did not have any involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the company as the same were being handled by Ajit Singh.
15. The examination of accused Anju Kapoor u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which accused stated that she was one of the Directors in AAM Infoways and Best Phone Technologies. She was only a formal/dormant director and had no role in the day- to-day affairs of the said company. So far as the rest of the companies are concerned, she has no knowledge of the same. The antenna installed on the roof had a valid licence for carrying out the business of medical transcription. She has been falsely implicated in the present case. She is innocent and was only a formal/dormant director in the two companies for carrying out the business of medical transcription and she did not have any involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the company as the same were being handled by Ajit Singh. She is a citizen of USA and has been residing there since 1980.
16. Final arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused persons were heard and case file was perused.
17. It is argued on behalf of the accused Praveen that FIR State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 16 of 36 was registered on the statement of PW3 G.S. Sharma and 4 witnesses from different government department have been examined in this case. There are improvements and contradictions in his testimony. Ex. PW3/A is the basis of registration of FIR in this case and the FIR was registered by Special Cell in PS Hauz Khas. It was further argued that none of the witness had proved any illegal telephony being run in the premise. Devices are alleged to be seized from the two premises but nothing is reflected in the testimony of witnesses which could show which device was seized from which place. The devices which were seized in the case were not sealed. Allegedly, 29 devices were recovered from Lajpat Nagar on the next day but the said devices were also not sealed. One witness says that the seized property was sealed but the other witness says that the property was not sealed. It is not the case of the prosecution that as per pointing out of accused persons, case property was recovered by the IO. In the seizure memo Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B, IO did not get the statement of any person recorded from site. Who was the owner of whom from which illegal telephony was allegedly run is also not clear from record. Devices recovered were not complete and they were not even verified by the IO. PW3 G.S. Sharma did not identify the case property as they were not produced. According to the prosecution case, accused Praveen was present at the spot and was found running illegal telephony. Owner of the hotel was not examined who could state that accused was present in the hotel. His State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 17 of 36 presence register or other evidence of Shyama Inn, Room no. 405 is also not placed by the IO. According to IO, accused was arrested from C17 and not from C5. The photographs placed on record does not show that accused was present at C5, Shyama Inn at the time of incident. Being an employee, accused was present at C17. On one hand, prosecution says that accused Praveen was GM on the other hand, he was merely operator. Antenna and Internet was there but accused was not operating the same. Number of people were staying at Shyama Inn at that time but no one was examined by the IO.
18. It is argued on behalf of accused Manjeet Oberoi that complainant G.S. Sharma was a senior officer of Vigilance Department and he had made a complaint in the present case. There was no irregularities in illegal lease line. Accused Manjeet was one of directors in both companies Infoways Pvt Ltd. & Best Phone Technologies. The complainant did not name any of the directors of the companies. Allegations against the accused are that they were running illegal telephony service by bypassing VSNL gateway but no subscriber is examined in the case. As per the prosecution case, Rs. 4 crores loss have been incurred to Govt. of India but on what basis, the loss had been calculated cannot be determined from record. They had merely calculated the damage on the basis of average number of calls that were received per day. Call detail records were not produced before the Court. PW7 says that they had not conducted any investigation regarding the same. G.S. Sharma State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 18 of 36 wrote to Guru Dev Singh and says vide its letter dated 07.01.2002 that Rs. 2.79 crores loss had been incurred. According to them, Rs. 4 crores which is a maximum loss which was incurred. Police says that the data which VSNL gave to them, on the basis of same, they had computed the loss. No independent inquiry had been done by the IO to assess the loss. Call detail record is not a part of the case file. From whom call was received is not proved. The author of joint inspection report and technical report i.e. Mr. Ashish had not been examined in the case. Photographs of raiding team is also not clear from the record. From which building those photographs are, is not evident. IO did not found necessity in sealing the devices before depositing the same in Malkhana. PW K.K. Nayyar says that no loss has been caused to MTNL. No witness from DOT is examined in the case. No bank statement had been shown or produced for proving any illegal gain. The witnesses themselves says that they does not remember steps taken to assess loss. Photographs belonged to which raid is not evident. For the lease line, there has to be an antenna. Who were the beneficiaries of the illegal telephonies is also not placed on record. The detailed joint inspection report also does not show how the devices seized were used as alternative system. How the devices were connected to run illegal telephony exchange is also not explained in the said report. Further, how the devices can be used to run the illegal telephony exchange by the IO. No signatures of independent witness were taken on joint inspection State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 19 of 36 report and technical report.
19. Ld. Counsel for Anju Kapoor had also argued that the case property was not sealed in the case. PW HS Gill and PW Gajraj had admitted that IO did not seal the equipment. PW3 GS Sharma had admitted in his cross-examination that he do not possess any technical knowledge regarding the joint inspection report and technical report prepared. The involvement of accused Anju Kapoor is doubtful as no one had disclosed her name in the involvement of offence.
20. Before dealing with the appreciation, I would first reiterate the relevant provisions of law involved in the case.
Section 420 Indian Penal Code deals with Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The provision reads as -
"Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 379 IPC defines 'Theft'. The main ingredients of theft are that one should intent to take dishonestly any movable State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 20 of 36 property out of the possession of any persons, without that person's consent. And the offender shall actually move that property in order to take it.
Section 4 of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 provides, "Exclusive Privilege in respect of telegraph, and power to grant license". As per the Section only central government have exclusive privilege of establishing, maintaining and working telegraphs the power to grant license also vest with central government only"
Section 20 of Indian Telegraph Act prescribes, "Establishing, maintaining or working unauthorized telegraph - (1) If any person establishes, maintains or works a telegraph within India in contravention of the 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.
(2) Nothwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), offences under this section in respect of a wireless telegraph shall, for the purposes of the said Code, be bailable and non-cognizable.
(3) When any person is convicted of an offence punishable under this section, the Court before which he is State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 21 of 36 convicted may direct that the telegraph in respect of which the offence has been committed, or any part of such telegraph, be forfeited to Government.
Section 20A. Breach of condition of license- "If the holder of a license granted under section 4 contravenes any condition contained in his license, he shall be punished with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, and with a further fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every week during which the breach of the condition continues".
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, he damages, removes, tampers with or touches any battery, machinery, telegraph line, post or other thing whatever, being part of or used in or about any telegraph or in the working therefore, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both".
Section 3 of Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act prescribes- "Prohibition of possession of wireless telegraphy State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 22 of 36 apparatus without license.--Save as provided by section 4, no person shall possess wireless telegraphy apparatus except under and in accordance with a license issued under this Act."
Section 6 of Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act prescribes punishment for breach of Section 3 of the Act.
21. The allegations against accused persons are that they were running organized racket of illegal international telephony in room no. 405, Shyama Inn, C-5/32, Safdarjang Development Area, Opp. IIT Gate, New Delhi in association with another company situated at C17. A radio antenna was installed and was working at rooftop of C17 and the link was extended to Shyama Inn via a cable and unorganized automatic de-switching of international voice calls were taken place through various cellulars and MTNL phones with the help of highly technical equipment. In this regard, a raid was conducted and accused Praveen was found at C17. PW GS Sharma, Senior Vigilance Officer, who is also complainant in the case, had deposed that he lodged the complaint Ex. PW3/A in Special Cell, Delhi Police, PS Lodhi Colony regarding functioning of illegal telephony exchange for switching of international call. Thereafter, a raiding team was formed along with the officers of Delhi Police including Inspector HS Gill and SI Guru Dev Singh and others and also Sarvendra Singh, Director Vigilance, K.K. Nayyar, AVO, MTNL and Ashish Kumar Aggarwal, Engineer of VSNL. The team conducted joint inspection at C17, SDA on the ground floor and in State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 23 of 36 the building on the rooftop, a radio antenna was installed, input from it was brought it to CISCO 600 Router in the room in C17, SDA from where the input of internet lease line was further taken through over head cables to room no. 405, Hotel Shyama International, SDA where the ILL interfaced on Nuera Packetizor unit and further two CAC Multiplexer on which 16 numbers of mobile numbers, the SIM of which was installed in GSM 900 telullar trans receiver and further 8 number of phone lines of MTNL was also interfaced to the said ILL. As per his version, the entire setup was found operational and powered on and traffic of international call was running at the time of raid. Joint inspection report Ex. PW3/B with setup layout plan which is Ex. PW3/C was prepared by the technical officers present in the team. Further, equipment were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/D.
22. Careful perusal of the testimony of PW3 GS Sharma who is also the complainant in the case shows that there are many contradictions and infirmities in the entire investigation of the case. Admittedly, accused persons Manjit Oberoi and Anju Kapoor were not found at the site i.e. C17, SDA Shyama International, they were later on implicated in the case as they were found directors in both the companies M. Infoways and M/S Suncore Software Development Centre Ltd. Only accused Praveen was found at the site of C17, SDA Shyama International wherein allegedly illegal telephony was being operated. The testimony of PW GS Sharma State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 24 of 36 shows that after the equipments vide which illegal telephony was being run were seized, a joint inspection report was prepared by the technical officer which is Ex.PW3/B (colly) and the set up layout plan was also prepared which is Ex.PW3/C(colly). The perusal of the joint inspection report Ex.PW3/B shows that the same was prepared by technical team consisting of Sarvender Sing, Director Vigilance (Tech. DOT), Ashish Aggarwal Senior Engineer VSNL New Delhi, K.K. Nayyar AVO/MTNL New Delhi, H.S. Gill Inspector Special Cell, Delhi Police, GS Sharma Senior Officer Vigilance VSNL, Delhi and Guru Dev Singh Sub. Inspector Special Cell, Delhi Police. The technical report Ex.PW3/C was also prepared by the said and both the reports were signed each of the team members. In his cross examination, PW GS Sharma admitted that he did not have any technical knowledge to handle vigilance functions. He admitted in his cross examination team that radio frequency antenna found at C17 SDA can be used for legal purpose as well. He further voluntary stated that the purpose for which bandwidth of internet being derived from it and being used in the setup box illegal in the bandwidth of international call was derived from it and was being switched through relative equipment. He further admitted that the bandwidth of internet drive out of radio frequency area and forwarded to CISCO 2600 router was placed on neuropacketizer and then to CSC Multiplexer for switching purposes which was taking place at C5/32, SDA. He further State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 25 of 36 admitted that CISCO router was situated at C5/32, SDA. He also stated that he cannot say as to whether the installation of radio frequency antenna on the roof of the building permitted within the ambit or not.
23. Though, PW3 complainant GS Sharma had signed the joint inspection report Ex.PW3/B and technical report Ex.PW3/C. However he himself admitted that he does not have a technical knowledge. The technical engineers who mainly prepared the report Ashish Agarwal Senior Engineer VSNL. However the said witness who had actually possessed the technical knowledge is not examined in the present case as the presence of said witnesses could not be secured by adopting sufficient means. The testimony of said the witness is relevant as he is the main witness in the case who had actually prepared the technical report. In his cross-examination, IO PW7 ACP Guru Dev had also admitted that only technical team can install and dismantle the technical equipment found at the abovesaid place. He also admitted that he do not have any technical knowledge regarding the operation of the same. Since IO ACP Guru Dev also do not have any technical knowledge of the manner in which seized device were connected at site C17 SDA with the equipments at site C5 SDA, his testimony also does not prove the joint inspection report Ex.PW3/B and technical report Ex.PW3/C.
24. PW4 K.K. Nayyar was also the part of joint inspection State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 26 of 36 team. His signature is also present in the joint inspection report Ex.PW3/B and technical report Ex.PW3/C. As per his version, he went to assist the team of Department of Telecom and VSNL in inspection. He had also deposed the same as PW3 GS Sharma. However in his cross-examination he had stated that he did not give any complaint to G.S. Sharma regarding any illegal exchange. He also stated that the MTNL was not agreed any lease revenue as for the international calls shared between VSNL and DoT. He also stated that he was given instructions to assist the VSNL staff as per their requirements. He also stated that he do not remember that in how many pullindas police had seized the equipments. He also stated in his cross-examination that his presence was at the spot was to assist the team regarding verification of MTNL working at that spot. He also admitted that in his capacity as an officer of MTNL his role was limited to verification of MTNL lines and he do not have technical knowledge regarding the diagram prepared in the technical report. He also stated that being from MTNL he cannot state the role of VSNL and the equipments mentioned in the technical report. He also stated that he do not remember whether any permission was granted for installing the antenna on the terrace of C-17 SDA as it was not part of his job. Though, PW KK Nayyar was also part of the joint inspection team, however he had clearly denied having any technical knowledge. He had also not proved how the illegal telephony was being run as per joint inspection report Ex.PW3/B State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 27 of 36 and technical report Ex.PW3/C.
25. The alleged illegal exchange setup by the accused persons was of technical nature and the same requires technical knowledge to operate, no technical member of raiding team was examined in the case who possesses technical knowledge as to how the seized articles Ex.PW3/D were connected so as to run illegal telephony. As no technical member of the joint inspection team is examined in the case, it is not proved in the case as to whether accused persons actually running illegal telephone exchange. It is also not proved in the case that the radio antenna installed at C17 SDA was brought to CISCO 6200 router in room no. C17 SDA which were further taken through head cables to room no. 405 hotel Shyama International. It is further not proved in the case that neuro packtezier unit, CSC multiplexer were connected to telephones were inter-phrased to IIL.
26. As per the prosecution, company Suncore Software Development was operating at C5 SDA. Best Phone Technologies was operating at C17 SDA. The lease deed pertaining to said premise are also placed on record, perusal of which shows that the lease deed of the premise was entered into by accused Ajit in both the companies. It is pertinent to note that company Suncore Software Development Centre Ltd, Best Phone technologies Pvt and AAM Infoways Pvt Ltd are not made accused in the present case. In the absence of company being made accused, the prosecution State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 28 of 36 against the director of the company is unsustainable. In order to show the involvement of any particular director in the illegal activity, the veil of the company had to be lifted. In the present case, the aforesaid companies are not made accused . Accused Manjit Oberoi and Anju Kapoor were implicated in the case only on the basis of disclosure statement by accused Ajit during investigation. It is pertinent to mention that there were several other directors apart from Anju Kapoor and Manjit Oberoi in the said company. Admittedly, Anju Kapoor and Manjit Oberoi were not present at the spot while the raid was conducted. The lease deed in respect of the said companies were also not signed by them. There is no specific role of accused Manjit Oberoi and Anju Kapoor proved in the case that they were involved in illegal technical exchange. Thus, the allegations against them are unsustainable.
27. It is also worth mentioning that the antenna placed on the roof of C17 wherein the company Best Phones Technologies Ltd was operating found to be legal and they had valid license for the same.
28. Though, complainant PW3 GS Sharma had stated in his testimony that input of international lease line brought from the CISCO 6200 router in C17 was brought through overhead cable to room no. 405 hotel Shyama International SDA where the IIL interfaced on neuro packetizer and further to CSC multiplexer on which 16 number of mobile numbers of sim were installed in GSN State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 29 of 36 900 Telular trans-receiver and further 8 number of telephones line of MTNL were also interface through the said IIL. In his cross- examination PW3 GS Sharma had stated that he does not remember whether overhead cable was seized and sealed by the police or not. PW7 IO ACP Guru Dev in his cross-examination had admitted that he did not seal the case property in the case. He further stated that he did not find it for sealing the case property and therefore he did not seal it. Since the case property was not sealed in the case, there may be possibility tampering with the case property. It is also admitted by the IO in his cross-examination that he did not receive any receipt upon depositing the seized articles in the malkhana. It is also worth mentioning that when the entire setup was found operational at room no. 405 Shyama International, no employee of the hotel was called for joining the recovery proceedings by the raiding team. The owner of the Shyama International was also not interrogated as to how they permitted illegal devices to be taken inside room no. 405 of their hotel on the basis of which illegal telephony was being run. No employee of the hotel or other occupier of the hotel could be examined who could support the version of IO that the seized devices Ex.PW3/D were recovered from the premise of hotel Shyama International.
29. PW3 GS Sharma had admitted in his cross examination that during investigation, he did not provide/hand over any document/information to IO to suggest that the owner of alleged State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 30 of 36 illegal equipment is AAM Infoways Pvt. Ltd and Suncore Software Development Center Pvt. Ltd. PW7 ACP Guru Dev had admitted in his cross-examination that he did not procure any document which could show that the alleged seized article were owned/purchased by AMM Infoways or Suncore Software Development Ltd. Since there is no document which could show that the articles neuro packetizer, CSC multiplexer etc belonged to the company AAM Infoways or Suncore Software Development Ltd the allegations against accused persons remains uncorroborated.
30. PW3 GS Sharma had stated in his cross-examination that he do not remember whether any calling cards from C-17 SDA and Shyama International were recovered or not. The witness was questioned during cross-examination that from where did you verify about the calls made if any. The witness had answered that he do not exactly remember. PW7 ACP Guru Dev had admitted in his cross- examination that mobile handset were not recovered during the raid. He also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not make any effort to collect the CDR of the sim-cards seized from the spot. He did not seal the sim-cards which are seized and recovered from the spot. He also admitted that he did not make any separate pullinda of the sim-cards. He also admitted that no measurement of the wires which were recovered from the spot was made by him. He also admitted that he had not mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.PW7/B that sim-cards were inside the trans-receiver. He also admitted that State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 31 of 36 document seized from the spot pertaining to issuance of MTNL connection and mobile connection containing the signature of Ajit only. The fact that there is no mention in the seizure memo Ex.PW7/B that sim cards seized by the IO were inside the trans- receiver creates a doubt that the entire setup alleged to be used in illegal telephony was actually running with the help of sim cards. As the sim cards were not seized vide separate pullinda, it also creates doubt as they can be tampered. The version of IO ACP Guru Dev itself shows that all the sims seized from the spot pertaining to MTNL were issued with the signature of accused Ajit only. PW2 Om Prakash who was summoned with the record of MTNL also had stated in his examination that all the forms on behalf of AAM Infowasy for issuance of telephone connection from MTNL were signed by accused Ajit Singh only. Thus, there is nothing which could show that accused Manjit Oberoi and Anju Kapoor were in any way involved in running the illegal telephony. Also the role of accused Praveen becomes doubtful. PW4 Ajit Singh Alternate Nodal Officer from Idea Vodafone could also not prove the CAF of mobile number seized by the IO during investigation as the same were destroyed.
31. It is also worth mentioning that in the arrest memo of accused Praveen Ex.PW7/D it is mentioned that accused Praveen was arrested from C17 SDA. However, as per the prosecution case, accused Ajit was found at site C17 SDA whereas accused Praveen State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 32 of 36 was present in C5/32, room no. 405, Shyama International. Initially in the chief, PW ASI Guru Dev had stated that accused Ajit and Praveen were found at site C17 SDA and were operating the system. His testimony appears to be contradictory as if the accused Praveen was arrested from site C17 SDA, how could he be found at room no. 405 Shyama International operating the illegal exchange. This is the major contradiction in the prosecution case. No photographs were also placed on record by the prosecution which could prove that accused Praveen was present at the room no. 405, C5/32, Shyama International operating the illegal exchange. Thus, the presence of accused Praveen at spot room no. 405 Shayma International appears to be doubtful. Though, prosecution had alleged that accused Praveen was the manager of Suncore Software and was managing the illegal telephony on behlaf of the company. However, as the presence of accused Praveen at site room non. 405 C5/32, Shyama International is doubtful, it is not proved in the case that he was actively participating running illegal telephony. PW7 IO ACP Guru Dev had also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not collect any document regarding that accused Praveen was the general manager in the company. There is also nothing on record which could show that accused Praveen was possessing technical knowledge for running the equipment seized from the spot room no. 405 Shyama International. Even if we admit that accused Praveen was the employee of the company, however whether he possessed State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 33 of 36 any technical knowledge to run the seized equipments and bypassing the calls, cannot be proved. Thus, there is no document on record that the accused was the being manager of the company was running illegal telephony alongwith accused Ajit and therefore he was found at site 405, hotel Shyama International running the equipments as stated.
32. The cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. In the present case, it is evident that Suncore Software Development company had taken internet lease line from Satyam Infoways under the written agreement. The subscriber who had to apply for internet can seek the same from Satyam Infowasy and therefore Suncore Software Development company had taken the same from Satyam Infoways legally. There is nothing on record to show that accused persons were running illegal telegraph in contravention of Section 4 of Indian Telegraph Act. The allegations pertaining to illegal telephony being run by accused persons is not proved and therefore they are not liable under section 20 of Indian Telegraph Act.
33. As the accused persons were not holding any license from Central Government having exclusive privilege for running and maintaining telegraph, the question of breaching the condition State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 34 of 36 of license does not arise and therefore offence u/s 20A is not proved.
34. There is no material on record to assume that accused persons intentionally damaged or tampered with the telegraph line. As such offence u/s 25 Indian Telegraph Act is also not proved. Offence u/s 3/6 of Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act is also not proved in the case. There is also nothing on record to shows that accused persons had bypassed the international calls by running illegal telephony and therefore offence u/s 379 IPC is also not proved. As it is not proved that accused persons were running illegal telephony in the case, therefore the question that they had cheated the government and had thereby wrongly caused loss of Rs. 4 crores to them is not proved. It is apparent from the above discussion that the allegations against the accused persons have not been proved. As such the ingredients of conspiracy of accused persons in committing crime is also not proved in the present case.
Conclusion & Decision
35. I am of the considered view, that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused Praveen, Manjit Oberoi, Anju Kapoor beyond reasonable doubt. Keeping in mind the above- mentioned discussion, accused Praveen, Manjit Oberoi and Anju Kapoor are acquitted for the commission of the offence under Section 120B IPC, Section 420 r/w 120B IPC, 379 r/w 120B IPC, State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 35 of 36 Section 4/20 ITA 1985 r/w 120B IPC, Section 4/20A r/w 120B IPC, Section 25 ITA r/w 120B IPC, Section 3/6 of Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1985 r/w 120B IPC.
Announced in the open court VIJAYSHREE RATHORE) In Delhi on 21.02.2024 MM-06,SOUTH/SAKET, Delhi State Vs. Praveen Kumar FIR No. : 987/2001 PS Hauz Khas U/s 420/379 r/w 120B IPC, 4/20A/25 ITA and 3/6 IWTA Page no. 36 of 36