Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Sheikh Mohammad Khalid on 2 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF NISHANT GARG
ACJM-2-CUM-ACJ, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID
Case No. : Cr. Case No. 111/2019
FIR/RC No. : CY1/2008/E0007
dated 30.12.2008
U/s : Section 66 r/w Section 43
of IT Act and Section 379
of IPC.
Name of Branch : CBI/SPE/EOU-IX/New
Delhi
CNR No. : DLCT-12-001325-2019
The date of commission : During the year 2008
of the offences
Name of the Complainant : Sh. Puneet Jhingan,
S/o Sh. R.K. Jhingan
Sr. Vice President,
M/s Worldphone Internet
Services Pvt. Ltd., Okhla,
New Delhi.
Name, parentage & address : Sheikh Mohammad Khalid
S/o Sh. Jamil Ahmad,
Permanent address:
A-23, Sector-35, Noida.
Previously residing at:
B-601, Samanvaya
Apartment, Sector-56,
Gurgaon.
Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 1 of 39
RC-CY1/2008/E0007
CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID
Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.02
16:18:50 +0530
Presently residing at:
B2/802, The Legend
Apartment, Sector-57,
Gurgaon-122011, Haryana
The plea of the accused : Not guilty
Final Judgment : Acquitted
Date of institution of case : 23.12.2009
Date of Judgment : 02.08.2025
Counsels for the parties:
Mr. Arjun Anand, Ld. APP for the CBI.
Mr. Mukul Sharma, Ld. counsel for the accused Sheikh
Mohammad Khalid.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Sheikh Mohd. Khalid has been sent by CBI to face trial for commission of offences punishable under Section 66 read with Section 43 of I.T. Act and Section 379 of IPC.
FACTS
2. RC CY1 2008 E 0007 came to be registered on 30.12.2008 on the complaint dated 30.12.2008 of Puneet Jhingan, Sr. Vice President, M/s Worldphone Internet Services Pvt. Ltd., Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi (hereinafter "Worldphone") on the allegations of data theft and its misuse by M/s. Cordia LT Communications Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon (hereinafter "Cordia LT").
3. In the complaint, it was stated that Worldphone is in the Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 2 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 Digitally signed CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:19:05 +0530 business of providing broadband internet services and internet telephony with a turnover of Rs. 15 Crores and has major investors like BCCL and HT Media Ltd. The telemarketing operations of the company were outsourced to Call2Connect India Pvt. Ltd., Noida (hereinafter "Call2Connect"). The prospective customers were calling Call2Connect in response to the advertising campaign of the company. These operations were being supervised by a Worldphone employee, Sheikh Mohammad Khalid, Assistant Vice President, who had access to the confidential customer database of the company containing details of approximately 10,000 customers.
4. The complaint further alleged that on 31.01.2008, Sheikh Mohammad Khalid suddenly left Worldphone and joined Cordia LT. It was suspected that Sheikh Mohammad Khalid caused theft of confidential database of about 12 GB size of the company. Immediately thereafter, a large number of Worldphone customers began receiving calls from Cordia LT offering them discounts and lower prices. Even the new customers made by the company started receiving calls from Cordia LT which led the complainant company to suspect that someone still working with the company is passing on the information to Cordia LT. Since Mr. Romit Singh Chauhan, Manager (Sales) was the coordinator, he came under suspicion and his work assignment was immediately changed. After that, the new customers were no longer being approached by Cordia LT which justified the suspicion of the complainant company.
Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 3 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:19:13 +0530
5. The complaint further alleges that the complainant Puneet Jhingan, Sr. Vice President, Worldphone received a letter from Cordia LT which contained their address. The address was exactly the same (including the mistake) as the address of the complainant company in their customer database. The complaint states that it was reliably learnt that Cordia LT continued to approach the customers of Worldphone through the data stolen earlier via vendors "Wi-Fi Systems", managed by Naveen Gupta. Wi-Fi Systems was earlier a vendor for Worldphone but Worldphone had terminated their services on the suspicion that they were using it to acquire customers for Cordia LT. Many of the employees of Worldphone confirmed to have received calls from their customers as being approached by Cordia LT to avail their services, during an internal enquiry conducted by Worldphone.
6. The complaint further alleges that Romit Singh Chauhan, in his telephonic conversation has admitted that Cordia LT was having all the data of customers and business of Worldphone in their possession. Hence, it was alleged in the complaint that Sheikh Mohammad Khalid, Romit Singh Chauhan and Naveen Gupta entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit theft of the valuable data of Worldphone.
7. During investigation, on 21.01.2009, the office premises of Cordia LT and Wi-Fi Communications were searched; computer hard disks, laptops and pen drives were put to keyword search with the help of forensic tools; the storage media in which the keywords were found matching, were seized and were sent for Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 4 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.08.02 16:19:22 +0530 forensic examination. Forensic examination confirmed the presence of "partial" data of Worldphone customers in the HP Laptop used by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid while working in Cordia LT. The said HP Laptop was exclusively used by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid. No evidence against Romit Singh Chauhan, Naveen Gupta or Cordia LT Communications was found. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid for commission of offence under Section 66 r/w Section 43 of the IT Act and Section 379 IPC.
CHARGE
8. Copy of the charge-sheet and accompanying documents was supplied to the accused free of cost under Section 207 CrPC. Vide order dated 24.09.2012, charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 381 IPC and Section 66 r/w Section 43 of the IT Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE
9. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:-
i. PW-1 Sushil Kumar- an employee of Cordia LT. He deposed that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid, while working as Sales Head in Cordia LT, had asked him to give 200-300 stickers/address slips for the purpose of sending Diwali cards, which he provided.
Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Digitally signed
Page No. 5 of 39
RC-CY1/2008/E0007
CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.02
16:19:31 +0530
ii. PW-2 R.C. Sharma- Manager, Bank of Baroda. He
participated in the CBI raid at the office of Cordia LT as an independent witness.
iii. PW-3 Yashpal Swaroop- Superintendent, Directorate General of Vigilance, New Delhi. He participated in the CBI raid at the office of Cordia LT as an independent witness.
iv. PW-4 Romit Singh Chauhan- He was initially employed with Worldphone and later joined Cordia LT. He deposed that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid had given him an offer to join Cordia LT, which he declined. However, later on, he joined Cordia LT. He further deposed that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid, while working in Worldphone, had access to incoming call data in response to advertisements; accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was issued an IBM laptop as well as a hard disk. He further deposed that in Cordia LT, he worked under accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid. Accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was issued an HP laptop and a USB for his exclusive use. He further deposed that while working in Cordia LT, he was provided with data on email as well as on printed paper by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid for generating new business; the said data resembled the data of Worldphone customers. v. PW-5 Sanjay Malhotra- Assistant Manager, Vijaya Bank.
He participated in the CBI proceedings at the office of Worldphone whereby data was copied from the server to a new hard disk. He proved memo Ex. PW5/A, specimen Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 6 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 by NISHANT CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.08.02 16:19:39 +0530 seal Ex. PW5/B and the hard drive Ex. PW5/C. vi. PW-6 Kanti Jain- He proved the invoice of HP laptop purchased by his company Bintek Marketing from M/s Kadam Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Ex. PW6/B which was seized vide memo Ex. PW6/A. He also proved the invoice of the HP laptop which was sold by his company to M/s Cordia LT Ex. PW6/C. vii. PW-7 Shirish Kulkarni- Chief Manager, Bank of India. He participated in the CBI proceedings and proved the memorandum Ex. PW7/A. viii. PW-8 Anand Kumar Sharma- an employee of Cordia LT. He deposed that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid had provided him customer details through office mail pursuant to which he used to contact the customers. ix. PW-9 Shominder Kaur- an employee of Cordia LT.
She deposed that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid had provided her customer details pursuant to which her team used to contact the customers.
x. PW-10 M. D. Vanjani- CEO/Director, M/s Cordia LT. He proved the seizure memo Ex. PW10/A and various documents seized through it during investigation. xi. PW-11 Captain Dipol Dhole- Vice President, HR in LT Food Ltd. He deposed that he had issued offer letter to accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid which he had accepted and worked with Cordia LT.
xii. PW-12 Vikas Sharma- Laboratory Assistant, CFSL, Delhi.
He proved search list Ex. PW2/C and memorandum Ex. PW2/A. He participated in CBI proceedings whereby three Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 7 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:19:47 +0530 laptops and one hard disk were seized from the premises of Cordia LT. He proved memorandum Ex. PW5/A. xiii. PW-13 Eswara Sai Prasad Chunduru- Assistant Government Examiner, CFSL, Hyderabad. He proved his reports Ex. PW13/A (colly) and PW13/C, besides various exhibits and communications sent to the CFSL. xiv. PW-14 Rahul Sadhana- an employee of Cordia LT.
He deposed that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was issued one laptop for official work; customer database of the company was between 1000-1500. He proved memorandum of comparison Ex. PW7/A. xv. PW-15 Ms. Priya Singh- an employee of Cordia LT at the relevant time.
xvi. PW-16 S.K. Jha- Sub-Inspector, CBI. He participated in the search operation at the office of Cordia LT alongwith the IO.
xvii. PW-17 Puneet Jhingan- Complainant. xviii. PW-18 Dharmender Kumar- an employee of Cordia LT at the relevant time. He deposed that he was asked by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid to paste the stickers on the envelops of Diwali greetings to post it. xix. PW-19 Anuj Arya- Investigating Officer.
10. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 13.02.2025. Statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded wherein he denied the allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated. He asserted that search at the premises of Cordia LT was carried out in his absence; he did not give any offer to Romit Singh Chauhan to join Cordia LT; Romit Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 8 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.08.02 16:19:55 +0530 Singh Chauhan did not work under him; the HP laptop was not in his exclusive possession but could be used by any employee; copying of data from the server of Worldphone was carried out in his absence; he routinely acknowledged the receipt of IT products supplied by vendors to Cordia LT; he was not involved in printing or dispatch of Diwali greetings; the dispatch of greetings took place even before his joining Cordia LT; the findings of forensic report are flawed; the analysis is inconclusive. He further stated that no independent witness had testified against him; he has been falsely implicated by Worldphone, his former employer by lodging a forged complaint to ensure that their rival Cordia LT do not approach their subscribers and that the complainant enjoyed uncommon influence with the CBI. No defence evidence was led.
11. I have heard the Ld. APP for the CBI and the Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the accused.
ARGUMENTS
12. Ld. APP for the CBI submitted that the prosecution has led sufficient evidence to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted that the complainant company's customers' started receiving calls from a competitor Cordia LT soon after accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid left the services of Worldphone and joined Cordia LT; accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was admittedly having the access to the customer database of the complainant company; from the laptop recovered from his office, details of numerous customers of M/s Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 9 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 Digitally signed CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.08.02 16:20:03 +0530 Worldphone were recovered; it has been proved from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses that the laptop in question was being used exclusively by the accused; there are no reasons to disbelieve the testimony of the expert who has categorically deposed about recovery of partial data of Worldphone's customers from the laptop in exclusive use and possession of accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid; the testimony of the expert has remained unchallenged in cross-examination on this aspect; the complicity of the accused is further established from the fact that while sending a greeting card, the mistake in the word "Okhala" which was there in the customer database of Worldphone crept in and the said greeting card landed up at the office of Worldphone which clearly shows that Cordia LT was having the details of customer database of Worldphone.
13. Ld. defence counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the data allegedly stolen by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid did not belong to Worldphone; it belonged to a US based service provide Vonage; there were no adverse remarks or warnings against the accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid at the time when he resigned from Worldphone; no objection was made by the company at the time of his exit; he was not considered to be involved in any case of data theft; the FIR was registered in violation of CBI manual without conducting any preliminary enquiry; accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was not present at the time of search at the office of Cordia LT; only 8 common entries were found in the databases of Worldphone and Cordia LT; no evidence of any financial gain to the accused or wrongful Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 10 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 Digitally signed CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.08.02 16:20:11 +0530 loss to the complainant company has been brought on record; no forensic evidence has come on record to link the data recovered from the laptop with the accused; the laptop in question was not being used by the accused exclusively; the seizure memo/search list cannot be relied upon; there is undue delay in conducting the search; the actual suspect Romit Singh Chauhan was not made an accused; no person from Call2Connect was examined during investigation; none of the customers of Worldphone were examined; the testimonies of prosecution witnesses do not inspire confidence and are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, he is entitled to be acquitted.
14. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the case file. I have also gone through the written submissions placed on record by the parties.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
15. The criminal law was set in motion on filing of the complaint dated 30.12.2008 by Puneet Jhingan, Sr. Vice President, IT, M/s Worldphone Internet Services Pvt. Ltd.
16. In the complaint, allegations of conspiracy between ex- employees of Worldphone including accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid and others were levelled regarding theft of the customer database of the company and consequent loss of around Rs. 1 crore to the company.
17. In the complaint, it was alleged that the telemarketing operations of the company were outsourced to Call2Connect; the Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 11 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:20:19 +0530 prospective customers were making calls to Call2Connect in response to the advertisements given by the company. These operations were supervised by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid who was having access to the confidential customer database of approximately 10,000 customers who were making calls to Call2Connect. It is thus clear that Call2Connect, a separate organization, was also having the details of the customers who were calling it for obtaining internet services of Worldphone. However, no investigation whatsoever with respect to the role of Call2Connect in sharing the data with any third party was carried out. No employee from Call2Connect was joined in investigation to ascertain as to who was having the details of the calls being received regarding obtaining of internet services from Worldphone.
18. In the complaint, it is further alleged that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid suddenly left the company on 31.01.2008 and joined Cordia LT. Immediately thereafter, a large number of Worldphone customers started receiving calls from Cordia LT to wean them away from Worldphone. Details of no such customers whatsoever has been mentioned in the complaint. Nothing have been stated as to who from Cordia LT was contacting them. Nothing has been stated as to how Worldphone came to know about receipt of calls from Cordia LT to those customers. It is highly unlikely that the customers of Worldphone would specifically inform it regarding receipt of telemarketing calls from another competitor.
19. The complaint further alleges that even the new customers Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 12 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.08.02 16:20:26 +0530 of Worldphone received calls from Cordia LT, some within 24 hours of the conversation. Seemingly, these 'new customers' were the individuals/entities which became customers of Worldphone after accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid left the company. Thus, accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid could not have details of these new customers to share with Cordia LT. In fact, the complainant company itself suspected the role of Romit Singh Chauhan, Manager (Sales) of the company who was admittedly having the details of new customers and was still working with Worldphone. Accordingly, Worldphone replaced him from his assigned duties and suddenly, the new customers were no longer being approached. Thus, admittedly, besides accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid, Romit Singh Chauhan was also having the details of the customer database of Worldphone.
20. The suspicion of Worldphone regarding availability of their customer database with Cordia LT was further confirmed when one greeting card was received from Cordia LT and on it, the wrong spelling of the word "Okhala" were mentioned which mistake was there in the customer database of Worldphone. In the complaint, suspicion was also there on Wi-Fi Systems whose services Worldphone used to obtain earlier but were terminated on the suspicion of misuse of their customer database to acquire customers of Cordia LT.
21. This complaint dated 30.12.2008 was addressed to the SP, Cyber Crime Investigation Cell, CBI. This assumes importance considering the fact that the manner in which FIR in the instant case was registered is surprising. The complainant, a private Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 13 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:20:33 +0530 company, did not approach any police station to lodge its complaint regarding theft of its data but straightaway approached the CBI to register a case and to 'search, seize and seal' the servers and computers of the suspects. This complaint was personally submitted by Puneet Jhingan at the office of CBI on 30.12.2008. No endorsement whatsoever about the date and time of receipt of this information was made on the complaint dated 30.12.2008.
22. On receipt of the complaint, on the same day, FIR Ex. PW17/A was lodged for commission of offences under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000. It is pertinent to note that though the entire FIR is typewritten on a computer, the date and time of receipt of information at the CBI office has been filled in by hand. No justification regarding filling of this information in hand has been furnished. There is no reason why this information could not have been typewritten when the complaint dated 30.12.2008 was already available with the CBI before registration of the FIR.
23. As already noted, the complaint dated 30.12.2008, prima facie alleged theft of customer database of M/s Worldphone from its computers and its unauthorized sharing with a competitor M/s Cordia LT. On these allegations, the FIR was registered for commission of offences under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 66 of the IT Act. Section 66 of the IT Act, as it stood on the day of registration of the FIR i.e. 30.12.2008, read as under:-
"66. Hacking with computer system-(1) Whoever with the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 14 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:20:42 +0530 destroys or deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes its values or utility or affects it injuriously by any means, commits hacking."
24. Clearly, by allegedly stealing the customer database, the suspects named in the complaint did not destroy, delete or alter the information or diminished its value or utility. The said act would not fall within the definition of hacking contained in Section 66 of the IT Act as it stood then. Despite that, the FIR was registered under Section 66 of the IT Act by giving it a, colour of hacking. The FIR was registered on a complaint by a private limited company against private individuals and other private entities without conducting any preliminary enquiry whatsoever. Eventhough, conducting a preliminary enquiry is not mandatory for registration of an FIR, however, as the complaint was received from a private company and was not having any all India/International ramifications, some special reason for registering the FIR should have been mentioned.
25. After registration of the FIR on 30.12.2008, notice under Section 91 CrPC was given to the complaint company on 05.01.2009 to produce, among other documents, digital devices and details of email IDs of the suspects named in the complaint. No such computer device or details of email IDs used by the accused persons were furnished by the complaint company.
26. Thereafter, on 21.01.2009, search under Section 165 CrPC was conducted at the premises of Cordia LT and others. Apparently, after registration of FIR on 30.12.2008, there was sufficient time for the investigating agency to obtain search Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 15 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:20:53 +0530 warrants under Section 93 CrPC from the court. However, no such warrants were obtained and the investigating agency proceeded to carry out the search under Section 165 CrPC. Accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid had left Worldphone almost one year before the search was conducted; almost 20 days had elapsed since the registration of the FIR; thus, it cannot be said that the accused would have destroyed the digital evidences available if search warrants under Section 93 CrPC were sought.
27. Now coming to the merits of the case, the prosecution case is that partial data of Worldphone was found in the HP laptop which was in exclusive use of accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid while he was working in Cordia LT and thus, it can be inferred that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid committed theft of data from the computer system of Worldphone and used it to obtain customers for Cordia LT. Further allegations against accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid are that he was instrumental in sending the greeting card to Worldphone which contained wrong spellings of the word Okhala which show that the said address was taken from the customer database of Worldphone.
Exclusive use of HP Laptop by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid
28. The prosecution case is that one HP Pavillion dv6500 Laptop, recovered from the office chamber of accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was being exclusively used by him. This laptop was purchased by Cordia LT from M/s Bintek Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vide invoice Ex. PW6/C which in turn had purchased it from M/s Kadam Marketing Ltd vide invoice Ex. PW6/B. The Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 16 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 Digitally signed CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:21:01 +0530 said laptop Ex. PW13/B (D-45) was seized during the investigation.
29. To prove these facts, the prosecution has relied on the testimony of PW6 Kanti Jain, the Proprietor of M/s Bintek Marketing Pvt. Ltd. In his court statement, he deposed that he had purchased one HP Pavillion Laptop Model No. DV6602AU bearing Sr. No. CNF74553PO from M/s Kadam Marketing Ltd vide invoice Ex. PW6/B (D-30). The said laptop was further sold by him to Cordia LT on 06.02.2008 vide invoice Ex. PW6/C (D-32). In the cross-examination, he admitted that no serial number of the laptop is mentioned on the invoice Ex. PW6/C issued by his firm M/s Bintek Marketing Pvt. Ltd. He further admitted that no mode of payment was mentioned on the invoice Ex. PW6/C. He also admitted that there was nothing in the invoice Ex. PW6/C to show that the said laptop was ever received by Cordia LT.
30. Ld. counsel for the accused argued that the HP Pavillion Laptop which was allegedly recovered from the office chamber of accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was having model no. DV6500 whereas the laptop sold by M/s Kadam Marketing Ltd to M/s Bintek Marketing Pvt. Ltd and further by M/s Bintek Marketing Pvt. Ltd was having model no. DV6602AU. Hence, it cannot be said that the laptop seized by the investigating agency was the one being used by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid.
31. Perusal of the laptop Ex. PW13/B (D-45) shows that it belongs to the series "HP Pavillion dv6000". It bears model no.
Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 17 of 39
RC-CY1/2008/E0007
CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed
by NISHANT
NISHANT GARG
GARG Date:
2025.08.02
16:21:35 +0530
HP Pavillion dv6500 and Sr. No. CNF 74553PO. These were rightly noted down by the IO at the time of its seizure. However, the laptop also bears "service tag" no. DV6602AU. The bill issued by M/s Kadam Marketing Pvt. Ltd bears the correct service tag number and serial number. Similarly, the invoice Ex. PW6/C of M/s Bintek Marketing also bears the correct service tag number of the laptop. Usually, a service tag number is the unique alpha-numeric number which is used to identify a product.
32. To prove that the said laptop was issued to accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid for his exclusive use, the prosecution had examined Priya Singh, working in the HR Department of Cordia LT at the relevant time. In her statement under Section 161 CrPC, she has stated that one HP laptop was purchased vide invoice dated 06.02.2008 of M/s Bintek Marketing Pvt. Ltd for use by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid; the invoice itself bears the name of accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid in the column "buyer's order number'; accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid had signed the said invoice in token of having received the laptop and it was being used exclusively by him and by nobody else in the company. However, in her court statement as PW15, Priya Singh deposed that during her stint in Cordia LT, she only dealt with appointment letters and Mr. Vanjani used to look after HR matters. She expressed ignorance regarding anything else with respect to the present case. The then Ld. APP had sought permission of the court to put a leading question to the witness as she was unable to disclose the complete facts. However, the request of Ld. APP was declined by the court. The Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 18 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:21:51 +0530 said order remained unchallenged. The testimony of this witness, thus, nowhere shows that the laptop Ex. PW13/B (D-45) was purchased for exclusive use by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid and was in fact being exclusively used by him.
33. PW4 Romit Singh Chauhan worked in Worldphone as well as in Cordia LT. He was one of the suspects in the complaint dated 30.12.2008 but when no incriminating data was allegedly recovered from his laptop, his name was kept in column no. 12 of the charge-sheet as well as in the list of witnesses. Romit Singh Chauhan had worked in Worldphone for almost three years before he resigned and joined Cordia LT. As already observed, as per the complaint, admittedly, Romit Singh Chauhan was having access to the customer database of Worldphone.
34. In his statement under Section 161 CrPC, he deposed that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was given one HP Laptop in Cordia LT which was exclusively used by him. In his court statement as PW4, he deposed, interalia, that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was allocated one HP laptop and a USB hard disk which were in his exclusive possession.
35. The testimony of this witness does not help the prosecution to establish that the laptop Ex. PW13/B (D-45) was the one which was issued to accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid and was in his exclusive control and possession. PW4 Romit Singh Chauhan has merely deposed about one HP Laptop which was in exclusive use of accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid. He was not shown the laptop Ex. PW13/B (D-45) and did not identify the Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 19 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:22:10 +0530 said laptop as the one which was the exclusively used by the accused.
36. The most important witness who could have deposed about issuance of the laptop Ex. PW13/B (D-45) to accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was M.D. Vanjani, CEO of Cordia LT at the relevant time. In his statement under Section 161 CrPC, he stated that being CEO of the company, he had full responsibility for operations of the company. He informed that on 05.02.2008, the company had placed an order for a new HP laptop to be used by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid which was handed over to him on 06.02.2008; this laptop was for his exclusive use. However, in his testimony before the court as PW10, M.D. Vanjani did not depose these facts. He merely identified the search list Ex. PW2/C bearing his signatures at point 'D' and 'E'. In the court, PW10 M.D. Vanjani did not specifically depose that the HP laptop Ex. PW13/B (D-45), purchased vide invoices Ex. PW6/B and Ex. PW6/C was handed over to accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid and was for his exclusive use only. Again, the laptop PW13/B (D-45) was not shown to the witness to identify that it was the same laptop which was in exclusive possession and control of accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid.
Search Proceedings at the office of M/s Cordia LT
37. The laptop PW13/B (D-45) was seized from the office of Cordia LT during search conducted on 21.01.2009. After search, memorandum Ex. PW2/A (D-4) was prepared. As per this memo, during search, on the basis of keywords, the digital devices found at the premises were analyzed with the use of forensic tools and Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 20 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:22:19 +0530 the devices, as mentioned in the search list Ex. PW2/C (D-3) were short-listed, sealed and seized.
38. After conclusion of the search, search list Ex. PW2/C was prepared. Relevant to note is that the search list Ex. PW2/C is not only in the handwriting of two different persons but is also prepared in two different colours. Despite a specific query, no explanation was offered as to why different inks were used in preparation of the search list. Initially, the details of devices seized during search were mentioned on the front page bearing Sr. No. 1, 2 and 3. On the second page, the details of seized devices and documents were continued in black ink from Sr. No. 4, 5 and 6. The IO has signed the search list in blue ink after its preparation. The entire search list nowhere shows any faded blue ink to infer that the blue ink pen being used initially had got exhausted which led to the use of black ink pen. Had this been a case, the IO would not have put his signatures in blue ink, which were seemingly put after preparation of the search list. Even the remarks column of the search list Ex. PW2/C has been written by two different persons for which no explanation has been offered.
39. During search, three laptops and one hard disk were seized from the premises of Cordia LT. Against these devices, the place from where these devices were seized have been mentioned. The Compaq Laptop at Sr. No. 1 was supposedly seized from the office of Romit Singh Chauhan, Acer Laptop was seized from the office of Ms. Priya, one Seagate Hard Drive was seized from the office of Amit Kumar and one HP laptop was seized from the office chamber of accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid. Nothing is Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 21 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:22:26 +0530 on record to show as to how the exact chamber from where these digital devices were recovered were identified. It is not the prosecution case that there were separate chambers in the office premises of Cordia LT bearing nameplates and designations of the persons occupying them. Further, nothing is shown as to whether the said digital devices were password protected or not and in case, these were password protected, whether their passwords were voluntarily disclosed by the person in whose exclusive possession these digital devices were.
40. PW2 R.C. Sharma was an independent witness to the search conducted on 21.01.2019. In his testimony before the court, he merely deposed that on being asked, he reported to the CBI office and was instructed to act as an independent witness; the CBI team conducted search in the presence of CEO of Cordia LT and seized digital devices/items from Sr. No. 1 to 6 of the search list (D-3). This witness was not cross-examined by the accused.
41. PW3 Yashpal Swaroop was an independent witness to the search proceedings carried out at the premises of Cordia LT on 21.01.2009. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed on the similar lines as PW2 R.C. Sharma. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not remember if accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was present at the office premises at the time of search or not; he did not remember the size of the office. He informed that there were many cabin and chambers in the office. He was not aware if the chambers had any nameplates or whether the chambers were locked or open. Further, he was not aware if the Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 22 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:22:34 +0530 digital devices mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 4 of the search list were password protected or not.
42. PW10 M.D. Vanjani was the CEO of Cordia LT and the search had admittedly taken place in his presence. His statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC is completely silent about the search proceedings carried out in his presence at the premises of Cordia LT. As already observed, in his court statement also, he has merely stated that CBI had visited his office premises, he proved his signatures on point 'D' and 'E' of the search list Ex. PW2/C without giving any details about the manner in which the search proceedings were carried out, digital devices were analyzed and seized.
43. PW2 Vikas Sharma was an expert from CFSL, Delhi and had accompanied the CBI team to the premises of Cordia LT at the time of search for the purpose of analyzing the digital devices found there. In his statement under Section 161 CrPC as well as in his court statement, he merely deposed about his visit to the office premises of Cordia LT and analysis of digital devices found at the premises. He nowhere disclosed if the digital devices were recovered from separate chambers of the employees and whether or not these devices were password protected or not.
44. From the testimonies of PW2 R.C. Sharma, PW3 Yashpal Swaroop, PW10 M.D. Vanjani and PW12 Vikas Sharma, it is difficult to ascertain if the laptop Ex. PW13/B (D-45) was actually recovered from a chamber which exclusively belonged to accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid. None of the prosecution Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 23 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 Digitally signed CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:22:43 +0530 witnesses have specifically deposed about the existence of any such chambers in the office of Cordia LT or recovery of the devices from those chambers.
45. In these circumstances, the testimony of IO PW19 Anuj Arya assumes importance. In his examination-in-chief, though, he did not depose anything on these facts, however, in the cross- examination, he informed that the laptop of accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was password protected and the password was unlocked by the accused himself. He did not remember if he had noted down the password at any place or not. He further did not remember as to whether the accused had removed the password from the laptop so that it may be accessed later on. He also did not remember as to whether the accused had disabled the password before seizure of the laptop was noted down at any place or not. He explained that since the seizure memo was signed by independent witnesses, signatures of the accused on the seizure memo were not obtained. He denied the suggestions that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was not present at the office of Cordia LT at the time of search. He informed that during search, M. D. Vanjani had informed him about the chambers of employees from where the digital devices were recovered. On being asked as to why signatures of employees from whose chambers the digital devices were recovered were not on the search list, the witness voluntarily stated that since the digital devices belonged to the company and since the CMD of the company and independent witnesses were present at the spot, signatures of the employees on the search list were not taken.
Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 24 of 39RC-CY1/2008/E0007 Digitally signed CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:22:51 +0530
46. The testimony of the IO, on these aspects does not inspire confidence. The IO merely acted on the oral statement given by M.D. Vanjani regarding the office chambers of the employees of Cordia LT. The entire charge-sheet and the documents filed alongwith it are silent on this aspect. Only in the cross- examination, the IO, for the first time deposed about these facts. Further, the statement of the IO that the seizure of the digital devices had taken place in the presence of the employees also cannot be taken on its face value. Signatures of the employees from whose chambers the digital devices were allegedly recovered were not taken either on the search list or on the seizure memo. The presence of these employees viz. Romit Singh Chauhan, Priya, Amit Kumar and accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid at the spot at the relevant time has also not been established. The statements of Romit Singh Chauhan, Priya and M.D. Vanjani recorded under Section 161 CrPC are absolutely silent on the aspect of search having been conducted in their presence or digital devices having been recovered from thereof his chambers. Statement of Amit Kumar was not recorded under Section 161 CrPC. In their court statements, PW4 Romit Singh Chauhan, PW10 M.D. Vanjani, PW15 Priya Singh and PW16 S.K. Jha did not depose about the presence of any of the employees at the office premises of Cordia LT from whose chambers the digital devices were allegedly recovered. Even the testimony of PW12 Vikas Sharma is silent on this aspect. The independent witnesses PW2 R.C. Sharma and PW3 Yashpal Swaroop have also not specifically deposed about the recovery of digital devices from the separate chambers of the employees of Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 25 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 Digitally signed CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:23:01 +0530 Cordia LT including accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid.
47. Since it has not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the laptop Ex. PW13/B (D-45) was recovered from the office chamber of accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid and that it was protected by a password which was in the knowledge of accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid only, it cannot be said that the laptop Ex. PW13/B (D-45) was in exclusive use and control of accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid.
Recovery of Partial Data from the Laptop
48. Further case of the prosecution is that partial data of Worldphone's Customers' was found in the System Volume Information and Unallocated Clusters of the Laptop Ex. PW13/B (D-45), marked as 'Q5' by GEQD, Hyderabad. In this respect, initially, vide letter dated 23.02.2009 (Ex. PW19/E), the CBI had requested GEQD, Hyderabad to give its opinion as per the questionnaire (Annexure A) attached with the letter dated 23.02.2009. Ten digital devices (Q1 to Q10), including the four seized vide search list Ex. PW2/C were forwarded to GEQD for opinion. One seagate make 320 GB hard disk containing mirror image of the server of the complainant company was also forwarded to the GEQD as Annexure 'C'.
49. As per Annexure 'A' filed alongwith letter dated 23.02.2009 (Ex. PW19/E), the CBI had sought details of the contents of the files contained in the laptops, hard drives and thumb drive. The GEQD was further asked as to whether the data Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 26 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 Digitally signed CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.08.02 16:23:10 +0530 in the digital devices (Q1 to Q10) matched with the data on the hard disk containing mirror image of server of the complainant (Annexure 'C') and if yes, the complete date/time stamp showing creation of data files on the questioned digital devices. The GEQD was further requested to opine as to whether the words "Okhala", "demo Mumbai", "Puneet" were present in the questioned digital devices (Q1 to Q10) as well as in the mirror image of the server of the complainant i.e. Annexure 'C'. Lastly, the GEQD was requested to inform as to whether the questioned digital devices contained any email matching with the data contained in mirror image of the server of the complainant (Annexure 'C').
50. In response to this letter, seemingly, the GEQD, Hyderabad wrote a letter no. CCH-44 to 53/2009/655 dated 27.02.2009, as reflected from the letter dated 15.06.2009 of the CBI Ex. PW19/G. This letter dated 27.02.2009 has not been filed on record and thus, it is not clear as to what was sought by the GEQD, Hyderabad from the CBI and for what purpose. In response to the letter dated 27.02.2009, vide letter dated 15.06.2009 Ex. PW19/G, the CBI sent a hard disk containing relevant files of the customer database of M/s Worldphone to GEQD, Hyderabad. Another blank hard disk of 160 GB was also sent to the GEQD. Receipt of these two hard drives was acknowledged by GEQD vide letter dated 18.06.2009 Ex.
PW19/H. Thereafter, vide letter dated 25.06.2009 Ex. PW19/O, the CBI sent a hard copy of the key words provided by M/s Worldphone for data search. It is not mentioned as to in response of which letter, the letter dated 25.06.2009 Ex. PW19/O was Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 27 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:23:19 +0530 written by the CBI.
51. The GEQD filed its report dated 13.08.2009 vide covering letter dated 14.08.2009 (Ex. PW13/H). Pertinent to note is that initially, this report was not relied upon by the prosecution and was not filed alongwith the charge-sheet. An application was filed by the prosecution for bringing on record the said report. However, though the said application came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.05.2019 but the report alongwith its Annexure 'A' came on record of the court file. Despite that, the said report was shown to PW13 Eswara Sai Prasad during his examination-in- chief on 15.10.2019 and was exhibited as Ex. PW13/C.
52. Perusal of the report dated 13.08.2009 and covering letter dated 14.08.2009 reveal that all the questioned digital devices were marked as Q1 to Q10, the hard drive containing the mirror image of the server of the complainant company was marked as Mark 'A', the hard disk containing the relevant files of customer database of Worldphone (sent vide letter dated 15.06.2009) was marked as Mark 'B' and one CD make Moserbear of 700 MB was marked as Mark 'C' by the GEQD, Hyderabad. The CD Mark 'C' was seemingly sent through a letter dated 25.07.2009, as reflected from the covering letter dated 14.08.2009 of the report dated 13.08.2009. The letter dated 25.07.2009 has not been placed on record by the CBI and nothing is shown as to in response of which letter of the GEQD, Hyderabad, this letter dated 25.07.2009 was written by the CBI. The CD Mark 'C' has also not been filed on record.
Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 28 of 39
RC-CY1/2008/E0007 NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID GARG Date: 2025.08.02
16:23:27 +0530
53. As per the report dated 13.08.2009 and covering letter dated 14.08.2009, no file with the hash value identical to the files contained in digital device Mark 'A' and Mark 'B' could be found in any of the questioned devices Mark Q1 to Q10. Thus, despite detailed queries raised by the CBI through Annexure 'A' filed alongwith letter dated 23.09.2009 Ex. PW9/E, the GEQD, Hyderabad was of the opinion that no files identical to the once containing in the hard drive containing mirror image of the customers' database of the complainant was found in any of the questioned devices. The report initially filed by GEQD, Hyderabad was complete and nothing was mentioned in the report as to whether any further analysis of the digital devices remained to be carried out for which a supplementary report would be filed.
54. Another letter dated 18.09.2009 Ex. PW19/Q was written by the CBI to the Director, GEQD, Hyderabad giving clarifications regarding the seizure and use of all questioned digital devices from Q1 to Q10. Alongwith this letter, another CD containing subscriber database of M/s Cordia LT was furnished to the GEQD, Hyderabad. Request was made by the CBI that email communications between suspects Sheikh Mohammad Khalid and Romit Singh Chauhan with the customers of Worldphone may be provided. Again, nothing is clear as to for what purpose this letter clarifying the seizure and use of the digital devices was written by the CBI. Nothing is on record to show if any such clarification was sought by the GEQD from CBI.
Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 29 of 39
RC-CY1/2008/E0007 NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID
GARG Date: 2025.08.02
16:23:34 +0530
55. Subsequently, a supplementary report dated 29.10.2009 was filed by GEQD, Hyderabad through covering letter dated 03.11.2009 Ex. PW13/A (colly). As per this report, partial data of Worlphone's customers' was found in the System Volume Information and Unallocated Clusters of the suspected digital device Mark Q5 i.e. the laptop Ex. PW13/B allegedly being used exclusively by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid.
56. I have minutely gone through the supplementary report dated 29.10.2009 of the GEQD, Hyderabad. The report has two paragraphs. In the first paragraph, it is stated that partial data of Worldphone's customers' was found in the System Volume Information and Unallocated Clusters of the questioned digital device Mark Q5. The raw data from Q5 was 'exported' to a Microsoft Word document and its hard copy was filed as Annexure 'A' alongwith the report (from page no. 54 to 104). As per the second paragraph of the report, key words "Demo Mumbai", "Mumbai Demo", "Puneet", "Worldphone", "Paul Collins" etc were found in the active files, deleted files, unallocated clusters, slash page etc. of the questioned digital storage media marked Q1 to Q8. These devices belonged to Romit Singh Chauhan, Priya, Amit Kumar, Sheikh Mohammad Khalid, Naveen Gupta (Director of Wifi Communications) and Ms. Ragini Rohtagi (Employee of Wifi Communications).
57. Seemingly, on the basis of key words search, the key word hits were found not only in the laptop allegedly used by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid but in the digital devices of other employees of Cordia LT and Wifi Communications. Complete Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 30 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:23:42 +0530 details regarding the number of hits obtained with respect to a particular key word on a particular device have been given from page no. 105 to 112 of Annexure 'A' of report Ex. PW13/A. Not only this, detailed paths of the files containing the key words in all the devices Mark Q1 to Q8 have been given from page no. 113 to 125 of Annexure 'A'. However, since only accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid has been arrayed as an accused in the instant case, clearly, the prosecuting agency is primarily relying on recovery of partial data from the device used by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid, as reflected in the first paragraph of the report dated 29.10.2009. Even otherwise, on opening the files as per the path details given in Annexure 'A', it is seen that the files mostly contains communications of the employees of Cordia LT either with other employees or with others. The key words used for conducting the search are quite general in nature and it is not uncommon that their use appears in usual communications. Perusal of the files, as per the path details in Annexure 'A' reveals that there is communication between employees regarding various customers and the services and plans being used by them. Thus, the existence of the key words used by the CBI in conducting key words search was quite natural in the digital devices Mark Q1 to Q8.
58. Annexure 'A' of the report dated 29.10.2009 of GEQD, Hyderabad is from page no. 54 to 104. It contains details of several entities, including their name, contact persons and addresses. All these details are purportedly of the customers of Worldphone which were found in the System Volume Information and Unallocated Clusters of digital device Mark Q5.
Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 31 of 39
RC-CY1/2008/E0007
CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.02
16:23:50 +0530
All this information was purportedly extracted by the Expert PW13 Eswara Sai Prasad and was copied in a Word document, a print out of which was filed as Annexure 'A' alongwith the report dated 29.10.2009. The methodology adopted by the expert in extracting this 'raw data' from the device Mark Q5 has not been explained. Nothing is on record to show that the digital device Mark Q5 actually contained this data. No screen shots of this data available in any form in the digital device Mark Q5 has been filed alongwith the report. It is further not clear as to how the expert was able to segregate the data contained in Annexure 'A' from the entire mirror image of the data of server of the complainant company from the 320 GB hard drive Mark 'A'. Even after extraction of the data, it is not the prosecution case that the expert had tallied each and every entry contained in Annexure 'A' of the report dated 29.10.2009 with the data contained in mirror image of the server of the complainant company Mark 'A'. No path details of these files as contained in the questioned digital device Mark Q5 has been furnished by the expert. In this circumstances, it is not possible to come to a definite conclusion that all these details as contained in Annexure 'A' of the report dated 29.10.2009 were actually available in the questioned digital device Mark Q5.
59. At page no. 54 and 90 of Annexure 'A' of the report dated 29.10.2009, 'full path address' is given. Nothing is clear as to of which digital device, this path pertains to. This path address cannot be of the digital device Mark Q5 as the said device would not contain the folder "CCH-44-53-2009", it being the report number. This path address could have been of the DVD Ex.
Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 32 of 39
RC-CY1/2008/E0007
CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed
NISHANT by NISHANT
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.08.02
16:23:57 +0530
PW13/G as it is similar to the path addresses mentioned on page no. 113 onwards of Annexure 'A' of report dated 29.10.2009. On opening the DVD Ex. PW13/G, the folder "System Volume Information" and "Unallocated Clusters" could not be located in folder "C" of folder "CCH-44-53-2009-Q5" of the DVD Ex. PW13/G. As per the testimony of PW13 Eswara Sai Prasad, the DVD Ex. PW13/G only contains soft copy of 'portion' of the supplementary report Ex. PW13/A.
60. The author of the reports Ex. PW13/C and Ex. PW13/A Eswara Sai Prasad was examined in the court as PW13. In his court statement, he merely proved his reports Ex. PW13/A and Ex. PW13/C besides several letters exchanged between GEQD, Hyderabad and CBI. With respect to recovery of partial data from the hard disk Mark Q5, he deposed that partial data in raw form was found in the unallocated and system volume information of the hard disk.
61. Eventhough, in the cross-examination, the factum of recovery of partial data of Worldphone's customers from the digital device Mark Q5 has not been disputed and no suggestion to the contrary has been given, however, in view of the deficiencies pointed out above in the report of the expert, it will not be safe to rely on the testimony of PW13 Eswara Sai Prasad and the reports Ex. PW13/A and Ex. PW13/C to reach the conclusion that partial data of Worldphone's customers was recovered from the system volume information and unallocated clusters of the digital device Mark Q5.
Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Digitally signed Page No. 33 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 by NISHANT
CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.08.02 16:24:05 +0530 Sharing of Data by Accused
62. The prosecution further alleges that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid used to share the customer database of Worldphone with the other employees of Cordia LT for generating new business for the company. To prove this, the prosecution has examined PW4 Romit Singh Chauhan. As already observed, Romit Singh Chauhan had worked in Worldphone for almost three years and was also having the details of the customers of Worldphone; at once stage, on being suspected, his duties were changed by the company as a result of which new customers of the company were no longer been contacted by Cordia LT.
63. In his testimony before the court as PW4, he, interalia deposed that while he was working in Cordia LT under accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid, he was given data through email and on printed paper for follow-up and generating new business from it. He further deposed that the data resembled that of Worldphone customers. In the cross-examination, he informed that he had told the investigating officer that the email through which accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid had sent him the details of the customers of Worldphone was present on his computer, however, the investigating officer did not take any print out of any email containing the details of Worldphone customers. He admitted that he has not been shown any such email printed on paper or contained in any electronic media in report. He further deposed that he himself did not make any call to any customer, the details of which were given by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid to Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 34 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 Digitally signed CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:24:13 +0530 him. He volunteered to state that he was not authorized to make any such calls and the calls used to be made by Anand, Anil and Shominder Kaur.
64. PW8 Anand Kumar Sharma was working at Cordia LT as a Tellecaller to make telephone calls to new customers. He deposed that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was Sales Head in Cordia LT; he used to provide him with customer details through office mail after which he used to contact the customers to ascertain their requirements. Similar is the testimony of PW9 Shominder Kaur who deposed that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid used to provide her with customer telephone numbers through Excel, print-out and mail. In the cross-examination, both the witnesses admitted that no print-outs or electronic reproduction of the office emails sent by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid to them were shown to him in the court.
65. The testimony of these crucial witnesses show that the investigation with respect to proving the factum of sharing of details of customers of Worldphone by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid with the employees of Cordia LT has not been properly investigated by the CBI. It had come in the statements of Romit Singh Chauhan, Anand Kumar Sharma and Shominder Kaur under Section 161 CrPC that accused used to share details of the customers with these employees through various means, including office email. Despite that, no efforts was made by the IO to take print out of even a single mail from the office email IDs of these witnesses. PW4 Romit Singh Chauhan categorically deposed before the court that he had Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 35 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 Digitally signed CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:24:22 +0530 informed the IO about presence of emails through which accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid had sent details of customers of Worldphone on his computer. Adverse inference is to be drawn against prosecution for withholding this material evidence despite availability. Further, PW4 Romit Singh Chauhan, though stated in his examination-in-chief that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid used to share customer data with him for the purpose of generating new business, however, in the cross- examination, he stated that he was not authorized to make any calls to the customers and never made any such call. Thus, there was no occasion for accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid to share data with Romit Singh Chauhan. PW8 Anand Kumar Sharma and PW9 Shominder Kaur though deposed about sharing of customer details by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid with them, neither of them deposed that those customers were of Worldphone.
66. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid used to share details of the customers of M/s Worldphone with other employees of Cordia LT to induce them with lucrative offers.
Receipt of Greetings by Worldphone
67. The prosecution further alleges that in 2008, Puneet Jhingan, Vice President (IT) of Worldphone had received a greeting card from Cordia LT which was sent by Cordia LT to all their customers. He observed spelling mistake in the world "Okhala" on the said envelope. On checking the database of Worldphone, he realized that the same mistake appears in the Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 36 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 Digitally signed CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.08.02 16:24:30 +0530 word "Okhala" in their database as well. This led to the suspicion that Cordia LT was having details of 10,000 customers of Worldphone.
68. To prove that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was responsible for sending this greeting card to Cordia LT after taking the details of the customers from the database of Worldphone, the prosecution has examined PW10 M.D. Vanjani, the CEO of M/s Cordia LT. In his examination-in-chief, he identified the greeting card and the envelope used by Cordia LT for sending greetings to its customers. He deposed that the customers as well as potential customers were identified by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid who was heading the marketing team of Cordia LT.
69. Perusal of the testimony of this witness shows that he has merely identified the greeting card and the envelope sent by Cordia LT to its customers. Admittedly, Worldphone was not a customer of Cordia LT and thus, the greeting card Ex. PW10/I and envelope Ex. PW10/H were not meant for it. The envelope Ex. PW10/H is addressed to one Puneet of "Demo Mumbai". The entire prosecution case is completely silent as to what is "Demo Mumbai". Entry of Demo Mumbai with its address of C-135, Okhala Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi, Delhi-110020 do exist in the customer database of Worldphone. However, nothing has been explained as to how Worldphone made this entry in their own customer database with their own address as the address of Demo Mumbai. It is not clear whether this entry was a demo entry inserted by Worldphone in their database or not. In Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 37 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 Digitally signed CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID by NISHANT NISHANT GARG GARG Date:
2025.08.02 16:24:37 +0530 fact, on opening the file at Sr. No. 4 of the path given in Annexure 'A' of report Ex. PW13/A, it is seen that an employee of M/s Cordia LT has referred to Demo Mumbai as having 15 lines (connections).
70. If the prosecution case is that greetings cards were sent to all the customers of Worldphone, in that case, the IO could have made enquiries from at least some of the 10,000 customers of Worldphone to whom the greeting cards were purportedly sent. PW1 Sushil Kumar, an Office Assistant in Cordia LT has merely deposed that on being asked, he had given 200-300 stickers/address slips to accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid. PW18 Dharmender Kumar has deposed that in October 2008, accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid had given him stickers on which addresses were printed for affixing them on the envelopes. In the cross-examination, he informed that about 2000 greetings cards were sent by the company. The testimonies of these two witnesses nowhere show that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was instrumental in sending the greeting card to all the 10,000 customers of Worldphone whose details he was allegedly having. On one hand, it has come on record that around 2,000 such greetings cards were sent, however, PW1 Sushil Kumar stated to have given only 200-300 address slips to accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid.
71. It is further pertinent to note that Cordia LT, i.e. the company where accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was working after resigning from Worldphone has not been made an accused in the present case. Even if it is assumed that accused Sheikh Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 38 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:24:45 +0530 Mohammad Khalid had stolen the customer database of Worldphone and was using it to lure the customers, he was doing it only for Cordia LT and not for his personal gain. The ultimate beneficiary of this act was Cordia LT. It is not the prosecution case that accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid was going to be personally benefited in any manner by approaching the customers' of Worldphone.
CONCLUSION
72. From the above discussion, it can be concluded that the manner in which FIR/RC came to be registered and search was conducted, is not beyond suspicion; the HP laptop Ex. PW13/B seized during the search cannot be said to be in exclusive use and possession of accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid; recovery of partial data from the laptop Ex. PW13/B cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and nothing is on record to show that the data shared by accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid with other employees of Cordia LT was that of customers of Worldphone.
73. Accordingly, the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Sheikh Mohammad Khalid is entitled to be acquitted of all charges and is accordingly acquitted.
Digitally signed NISHANT by NISHANT GARG GARG Date: 2025.08.02 16:25:04 +0530 Announced in Open Court (NISHANT GARG) on 2nd of August, 2025 ACJM-2-cum-ACJ ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI Cr. Case No. 111/2019 Page No. 39 of 39 RC-CY1/2008/E0007 CBI vs. SHEIKH MOHAMMAD KHALID