Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
Anil S.Kilor, Pravin S.Patil
Nishant S/o. Pradeep Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Anti Terrorist Squad, Lucknow, through Investigating Officer, Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anil S. Kilor, J.
1. Heard.
2. This is an appeal filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code questioning the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 3rd June, 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nagpur in Sessions Case No.726 of 2021, thereby convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Section 66-F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2000”) read with Section 3(1)(c) and Section 5(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1923”).
3. The appellant is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 66-F of the Act of 2000. He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act of 1923 and is further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months under Section 5(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) and Section 5(3) of the Act of 1923.
4. As recorded by the trial Court, it is the case of the prosecution that the informant Harishanker Mishra (PW-1) filed a Fir
Mens rea is essential for convictions under cyber terrorism and espionage statutes; negligence alone does not meet the threshold required for severe charges.
Bail for offences under the Official Secrets Act is not granted lightly when serious allegations of espionage and substantial evidence exist against the accused.
UA(P) Act - Grant or release on bail to an accused person, is enunciated as a non-obstante clause, which clearly and unequivocally postulates that, if the Court is of the opinion that, there are reas....
Point of Law; In case of acquittal, it is settled law that if two views are possible, the appellate court should adopt the view which is favourable to the accused
High Court should be extremely cautious about interfering with the investigation and should not stall the investigation unless it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that FIR does not disclose an....
The prosecution must prove the accused's knowledge and intent in theft cases. Lack of evidence regarding the accused's knowledge of the stolen property can lead to acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
