The main legal point established in the judgment is that the establishment of an unauthorized telephone exchange falls within the purview of the Indian Telegraph Act, leading to the conviction of the accused.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., pleasedto set aside the judgment dated 05.12.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.240 of 2010in C.C.No.15491 of 2008 passed by the Learned III Additional Sessions Judge,Chennai, acquitting the respondent/accused (A2 and A3) for the chargeslevelled against them and convict them for the offences charged in the interestof justice.)

1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State being aggrieved bythe order of the Lower Appellate Court acquitting the accused by reversing thejudgment of the trial Court convicting the respondent for the offences underSection 20 r/w 4 of Indian Telegraph Act and Section 21 of Indian TelegraphAct, 1885.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, between June 2004 andMarch 2005, A1 Abdul Hakeem established illegal telecom hub in the name ofM/s.Casino Courier Service, at Door No.75, II Floor Triplicane High Road,Triplicane, Chennai. He was a running parallel Telecom Exchange withoutobtaining valid license. In pursuant to the criminal conspiracy,Mr.T.S.Saravanan, Proprietor of M/s.Vaibhav Enterprises and one Malliga,Manager, misused GSM connection of M/s.Airtel; were illegally used forreceiving international calls through ADSL link of M/s.BSNL. All the threeaccused in pursuant to the said conspiracy, by using the illegal telecomconnection, transmitted the international calls as local calls and was connectedto various domestic phone connections. By this, they caused loss to the tune ofRs.57,54,375/- to the Government of India, Department of Telecommunication.

3. The trial Court framed charges against A1 to A3 for the offencesunder Section 120-B r/w 419, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C and under Sections 20, 21and 25(c) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Section 6 r/w 3 of Indian WirelessTelegraph Act and Section 66(2) of Information and Technology Act, 2000.

4. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses(P.W.1 to P.W.16), marked 50 Exhibits (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.50) and 49 materialobjects (M.O.1 to M.O.49), (mostly cellphones and SIM Cards used for thealleged crime)

5. The trial Court found all the three accused guilty of offencesunder Sections 20 & 21 of Indian Telegraph Act sentenced them to undergo thefollowing punishment:-

6. The trial Court, however held that the prosecution failed toprove the offences under Section 66 (2) of Information and Technology Act2000, Section 6 r/w 3 of Indian Wireless Telegraph Act and Section 25(c) ofIndian Telegraph Act and also concluded that, the prosecution failed to provethe charges against all the three accused under section 120-B r/w 419, 420, 468,471, 468 r/w 471 and 419 of I.P.C

7. Aggrieved by the order of Trial Court in C.C.No.15491 of 2008,A1/Abdul Hakeem has preferred C.A.No.240 of 2010 and A2 has preferredC.A.No.239 of 2010 before the III Additional Sessions Court, Chennai.

8. The Sessions Court allowed both the appeals holding that, theallegations of illegal use of Telegraph or establishing unauthorised telegraphpunishable under the Indian Telegraph Act is unfound. The charges andmaterial evidence indicates violation of Telecom Regulatory Authority of IndiaAct 1997 but the trial Court has misconstrued that the appellants have violatedthe Indian Telegraph Act. Since the appellants/accused were not charged undercorrect provision/Act, they are entitle for acquittal.

9. Being aggrieved by that, the State/Appellant has preferredappeal Crl.A.No.783 of 2013 against the order of acquittal of Abdul Hakeem(A1) on the ground that the Learned Trial Court Judge failed to consider thefacts and law pr