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

2. The case of the prosecution is that, between June 2004 and March 2005, A1 Abdul Hakeem established illegal telecom hub in the name of M/s.Casino Courier Service, at Door No.75, II Floor Triplicane High Road, Triplicane, Chennai. He was a running parallel Telecom Exchange without obtaining 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 for receiving international calls through ADSL link of M/s.BSNL. All the three accused in pursuant to the said conspiracy, by using the illegal telecom connection, transmitted the international calls as local calls and was connected to various domestic phone connections. By this, they caused loss to the tune of Rs.57,54,375/- to the Government of India, Department of Telecommunication.

3. The trial Court framed charges against A1 to A3 for the offences under Section 120-B r/w 419, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C and under Sections 20, 21 and 25(c) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Section 6 r/w 3 of Indian Wireless Telegraph 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 material objects (M.O.1 to M.O.49), (mostly cellphones and SIM Cards used for the alleged crime)

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

6. The trial Court, however held that the prosecution failed to prove the offences under Section 66 (2) of Information and Technology Act 2000, Section 6 r/w 3 of Indian Wireless Telegraph Act and Section 25(c) of Indian Telegraph Act and also concluded that, the prosecution failed to prove the 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 preferred C.A.No.239 of 2010 before the III Additional Sessions Court, Chennai.

8. The Sessions Court allowed both the appeals holding that, the allegations of illegal use of Telegraph or establishing unauthorised telegraph punishable under the Indian Telegraph Act is unfound. The charges and material evidence indicates violation of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 but the trial Court has misconstrued that the appellants have violated the Indian Telegraph Act. Since the appellants/accused were not charged under correct provision/Act, they are entitle for acquittal.

9. Being aggrieved by that, the State/Appellant has preferred appeal 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 the facts and law properly. The definition of 'Telegraph' under the Indian Telegraph Act includes Telephone also but the trial Court misconstrued the law and had wrongly observed that the violation attracts only provision of TRAI, 1987.

10. Though notice was sent to the 1st respondent/accused, there is no representation for the respondent/accused. Hence, Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi was appointed by Legal Services Authority to represent the re