Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy  of Judgment
Pdf Text: – 1 – C.C.NO.681/PS/2019
Received on : 28/01/2019
Registered on : 28/01/2019
Decided on : 06/05/2023
Duration : 04 Y.03 M. 08 D.
Exh. : 08
IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
44th COURT, ANDHERI, MUMBAI.
(PRESIDED OVER BY A. I. SHAIKH)
(JUDGMENT U/SEC. 355 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)
(CNR NO. MHMM190017252019)
(a) The serial No. of the case; : C.C.NO.681/PS/2019
(b) The date of commission of
the offence;
: From 02/03/2017 to 12/03/2017
(c) The name of the
complainant (if any);
: The State (Versova Police Station
in Spl.L.A.C. No. 20/2017).
(d) The name of the accused
persons and their parentage
and residence;
: Surender Jaideo Singh,
Age 46 Yrs.
Occupation Nil,
R/o.Flat No.12, A, Satyam Center,
Virar (W).
(e) The offences complained of
or proved ;
: Under Sections 43 (A), 66 of The
Information Technology Act
(f) The plea of the accused and
their examination (if any); : The accused pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order; : The accused is acquitted.
(h) The date of such order; : 06/05/2023
-- 1 of 5 --
– 2 – C.C.NO.681/PS/2019
Ms. Seema Mokal, APP for the State.
Mr.Vikas Dube, Advocate for the accused.
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 06/05/2023.)
1. The accused is prosecuted for the offence punishable under
Sections 43 (A), 66 of the Information Technology Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, the informant is the
owner of 'Indexia Finance' company. He gave Rs.4,89,750/ to accused
for making portal and SEO for his company. Accused never gave the
same in time. Accused also changed the password of his website and he
also blocked his website and email. Hence, he lodged report against
the accused.
3. On the basis of the report given by the informant, crime no.
20/2017 came to be registered against the accused. During
investigation I.O.arrested the accused, recorded statement of witnesses.
After completion of investigation, I.O. filed chargesheet against the
accused.
4. The charge is framed against the accused for the above
mentioned offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried. The prosecution has examined only two witnesses in this case.
Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is recorded. The defence of the accused is of total denial.
-- 2 of 5 --
– 3 – C.C.NO.681/PS/2019
5. The points for determination alongwith my findings
thereon as under :
POINTS FINDINGS
1] Does the prosecution prove that the
accused did without the permission of
owner or any other personincharge
damage the computer, or computer
system or computer work ?
In the negative
2] Does the prosecution prove that the
accused criminalises the sending of
offensive messages through a computer
or other communication devices?
In the negative
3] What order ? The accused is
acquitted.
R E A S O N S
AS TO POINTS NO. 1 AND 2 :
6. The prosecution has examined only two witnesses in this
case i.e. Bijendra Surajmal Malik, informant (P.W.1) and Sachin
Subhash Desai, (P.W.2).
7. Bijendra Surajmal Malik, informant (P.W.1) deposes at
Ex,4 that he has running company namely Indexia Finance. He give
loan to people. He wanted to make web portal therefore he higher the
company of accused. He demanding four months time and gave
remuneration of Rs.1,12,000/. The agreement was executed in that
respect. Accused took full amount but he never made the portal.
Accused demanded more money for the work. He gave Rs.5 lacs to
accused. Accused also hacked and closed his website. Therefore, he
lodged report against the accused. Accused also changed the password
of portal site and hacked all sites.
-- 3 of 5 --
– 4 – C.C.NO.681/PS/2019
8. During his crossexamination he stated that he never
brought the documents in respect of registration of his company. He
admitted that the agreement was not registered. He denied that he did
not give any amount to accused.
9. Sachin Subhash Desai, (P.W.2) deposes at Exh.6 that he
was working in Indexia Finance company. Company had gave software
work to accused. The password of software is with the accused.
Thereafter, accused demanding more money and hacked the website.
Informant had lodged report.
10. During his crossexamination he denied that at the instance
of informant he was deposing false.
11. I have gone through the record. Upon perusal of entire
evidence there is no concrete and direct evidence against the accused.
The prosecution failed to prove their case. Hence, I hold that the
prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused. Hence, I answer points
no.1 and 2 in the negative.
AS TO POINT NO.3:
12. The prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused.
Therefore, the accused is liable to be acquitted. In the result, in answer
to Point No.3, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1 The accused Surender Jaideo Singh is acquitted of the offence
punishable under Sections Sections 43 (A), 66 of the
-- 4 of 5 --
– 5 – C.C.NO.681/PS/2019
Information Technology Act vide Section 255 (1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
2 Bail bond of the accused stand cancelled.
3 The accused to execute P.R. Bond of Rs.15,000/ (Rupees
Fifteen Thousand Only) vide Section 437–A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for appearance before the higher court, if
said court issues notice to him for his appearance in the matter
in which present judgment is challenged, if any.
The Judgment is transcribed directly on the computer and
pronounced in open Court.
Mumbai ( A. I. Shaikh )
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date:06/05/2023 44 th Court, Andheri, Mumbai.
spj
Typed On: 06/05/2023
Signed On: 06/05/2023
-- 5 of 5 --