Crl.A.No.783 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 04.07.2023

Pronounced on: 20.07.2023

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Criminal Appeal No.783 of 2013

State represented by,

Inspector of Police,

CBI/EOW/Chenani.

... Appellant/Complainant

/versus/

Abdul Hakeem.M,

S/o.Mr.Abu Backer,

No.12, Surappan Street,

Triplicane,

Chennai – 600 005.

... Respondent/Accused

Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., pleased

to set aside the judgment dated 05.12.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.240 of 2010

in C.C.No.15491 of 2008 passed by the Learned III Additional Sessions Judge,

Chennai, acquitting the respondent/accused (A2 and A3) for the charges

levelled against them and convict them for the offences charged in the interest

of justice.

For Appellant

: Mr.K.Srinivasan, Senior Counsel,

Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)

For Respondent

: Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi,

Legal Aid Counsel

____________

Page No.1/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.783 of 2013

J U D G M E N T

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.

____________

Page No.2/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.783 of 2013

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:-

Accused

Offences

Conviction and Sentence passed by the trial

Court

A1

to

A3

u/s.20 r/w 4 of Indian

Telegraph Act

To undergo 6 months S.I and to pay fine of

Rs.1000/- each in default 2 weeks S.I.

u/s.21

of

Indian

Telegraph Act

Sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50/- each in

default 1 week S.I.

6. The trial Court, however held that the prosecution failed to

____________

Page No.3/13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.783 of 2013

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 ha