JUDGEMENT

( Delivered on 06 / 04 / 2021) This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Coder, 1973 against the judgment dated 8.1.2018 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora, District-Ratlam in S.T. No.258/2015, whereby the learned Judge of the Sessions Court finding the appellant guilty, has convicted him for an offence under Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as the I.T. Act) and has sentenced him to :2: Cr.A.No.659-2018 rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.2000/- with default clause.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that, on 24.9.2014, one G.B. Bamankar, Principal of G.T. Polytechnic College, Jaora filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police Cyber Cell District-Ratlam to the effect that an e-mail has been forwarded to him by Dr. Ashish Dongare which has been sent to him by one Pankaj Kanthed's e-mail ID who is posted as Lab Technician in the said College and when G.B. Bamankar enquired regarding the said e-mail from Pankaj Kanthed, he informed that the said e-mail has not been sent by him and according to Pankaj Kanthed, e-mail ID pankajkhanthed_2014@rediffmail.com has been created by some other person fraudulently which is a cyber crime.

3. On this complaint, a first information report was lodged on 03.01.2015 at crime No.9/2015 under Sections 419, 468, 469 & 471 of the I.P.C. read with Section 66A(c), 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 against the unknown person and investigation ensued in which it was found that it was the present appellant Santosh Bharti who had sent the aforesaid e-mail. The charge sheet was filed and after the case was committed, the learned Judge of the trial Court, after recording the evidence, while acquitting him in respect of offences under Sections 419, 468, 469 & 471 of the I.P.C. and Section 66A(c) and 66D of IT Act, convicted the appellant as aforesaid u/s. 66C. Thus, being aggrieved, this appeal has been aggrieved, this appeal has been :3: Cr.A.No.659-2018 preferred by the appellant.

preferred by the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Judge of the trial court has erred in not appreciating the learned Judge of the trial court has erred in not appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that the evidence in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had sent the e-mail prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had sent the e-mail to Ashish Dongare by using a forged e-mail ID as the email Ex.P/2 to Ashish Dongare by using a forged e-mail ID as the email Ex.P/2 has not been proved in accordance with law as no certificate under has not been proved in accordance with law as no certificate under the provisions of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 has been the provisions of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 has been filed on record. It is submitted that in the absence of a valid filed on record. It is submitted that in the absence of a valid certificate u/s.65-B of the Evidence Act, Ex.P/2 cannot be read in certificate u/s.65-B of the Evidence Act, Ex.P/2 cannot be read in evidence and on this ground only the appellant is liable to be evidence and on this ground only the appellant is liable to be acquitted. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not been acquitted. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which is also able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which is also apparent from the deposition of P.W.3 R