0

No tolerance when addressing the bail requests of cyber thugs in cybercrime cases.- Punjab high court

Blog ,

TITLE: Gurmeet Singh v State of Punjab   

Decided On-:21.07.2023

CRM-M-46621-2022

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Anoop Chitkara

INTRODUCTION- The petitioner had come before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. The petitioner, who was facing arrest in the FIR referred to above, was accused of locating candidates who could successfully complete the online examination for the recruitment of Police Sub Inspectors in the State of Punjab. In a ruling dated April 10, 2023, this court had approved temporary bail.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The prosecution’s claim is that on September 16, 2021, the SHO of Police Station Anaaj Mandi in Patiala secretly learned that online tests for hiring various departments were being held at a centre run by Infra IT Solutions, Zila Parishad. The computers have been breached by Complex, Patiala, and a few hackers.

The source added. stated that one candidate, Gurpreet Singh, received the highest marks in the August 2021 Sub Inspector recruitment exam. He took the exam at the Infra IT Solutions testing facility. It was further stated that Gurpreet Singh did not receive his high marks on the basis of merit but rather as a result of a group of cybercriminals hacking computer centres and someone else remotely answering his question paper.

While conducting their investigation, they detained the aforementioned candidate Gurpreet Singh and continued to detain numerous other suspects. Ankit, one of the arrested suspects, informed the investigator of the petitioner’s involvement on September 22, 2021. He added that the petitioner used to register candidates for exams at the testing location.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Additionally, the State’s attorney claimed that, in accordance with the court’s observations, the police are still looking into the case and have obtained prima facie evidence of numerous communications and transactions between the petitioner and other accused persons linking his involvement with the aforementioned offence. The Deputy Superintendent of Police stated in an affidavit that they wanted the custodial investigation to know the roles of other people involved in the recruitment scams, including the beneficiaries, and that this scam had already halted the recruitment for Sub Inspectors.

this Court is not considering the evidence qua disclosure statement, but the evidence collected after such disclosure statements which point out three relevant facts:-

  • The petitioner had worked with the said centre.
  • (ii) After Jasvir Kumar left the centre, the petitioner had worked there.
  • (iii) There are various communications between the petitioner and other accused which the petitioner had failed to explain

Counsel relied on various ruling while submitting his arguments.

The Executive is responsible for making sure that software used to handle such sensitive information is secure, error-proof, and that its code was written with today’s exponential technological advancements in mind. They are also responsible for preventing hackers from abusing artificial intelligence. In the case of cybercrime, there can be no leniency when handling the bail requests of cyberthugs. Cybercriminals must be dealt with harshly, and incarceration interrogation of these cyberthugs in such sensitive matters is necessary not only to reveal the involvement of other people but also to identify the weakness in the systems to thwart future breaches.

 Petition dismissed

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

 

0

Punjab high court grants the obvious fundamental right to citizens (Passport Act, 1967) at a stretch

Blog , , ,

TITLE: Mohan Lal & others vs Union of India  

Decided On-14.07.2023

CWP-27167 of 2018 and all connected cases

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Jagmohan Bansal

INTRODUCTION-   By filing this petition in accordance with Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution, the petitioner is requesting direction from respondents Nos. 1 through 3 regarding the renewal of his passport.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

In a nutshell, the petitioner received a passport on August 22, 2005, and that passport expired on August 21, 2015, in order to decide this case. In accordance with the NDPS Act, a FIR was filed against him on March 13, 2008. In a judgement dated October 9, 2013, the trial court found the petitioner guilty of violating Section 15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to ten years in prison. The petitioner contesting the rulingof conviction and sentence CRA-S-3725-SB of 2013 before this Court, which was ultimately admitted by order dated November 25, 2013. The petitioner’s sentence was suspended by an order this Court issued on February 14, 2017. The petitioner asked for his passport to be renewed on July 7, 2017. The petitioner was made aware of a bad police report in a communication dated July 17, 2017. Final closure of the petitioner’s application. A directive to the respondents to renew his passport was requested by the petitioner in the ongoing appeal; however, this request was ultimately denied by order dated September 25, 2018. The petitioner had the right to file a civil writ petition in the event that his application was denied, but it was denied on the grounds that the requested relief was only of a civil nature.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Learned  The petitioner’s attorney, among other things, claims that clause (e) of Section 6(2) of the Passport Act of 1967 (also known as the “1967 Act”) applies to his case. According to Clause (e) of Section 6(2) of the 1967 Act, the passport authority may grant a passport to a person who has been convicted within five years of the application date or whose sentence is less than two years. The strictures of clause (e) of Section 6(2) of the 1967 Act are not applicable if an applicant is sentenced to a term of less than two years or dies within five years of the date of conviction. Ld. Counsels for respondents Nos. 1 through 3, including the Union of India and the passport authorities, would contend that because the petitioner has been found guilty and given a 10-year sentence, he is ineligible to receive a passport. An appeal is a continuation of the initial civil or criminal proceedings. Since the petitioner’s appeal is still pending before this court, even though his case does not fall under Clause (e) of Section 6(2) of the 1967 Act, it is clearly covered by that provision. The Government has made it clear that a passport can only be issued to a requester against whom criminal proceedings are pending on the basis of notification No. 570(E) dated 25.08.1993 issued by the Government in accordance with the authority granted by Section 22 of the Act.

The court has heard the arguments and taken a thorough approach to the case as a result of the respondent’s attorney’s reliance on several honorable courts’ decisions. Additionally, the current honorable court has reviewed previous statutes and rulings, granted citizens clear rights, and stated The issue needs to be further examined in light of the evolving social, scientific, and economic environment with regard to human and fundamental rights.Although a Constitution Bench in Maneka Gandhi (supra), more than 40 years ago, held that the right to travel is not one of the fundamental rights enumerated in Article 19(1) of the Constitution, it still considered a number of scenarios where the denial of a passport would constitute a violation of the right to freedom of speech or freedom of business contemplated by that provision.

The petitioner submitted a passport application before the five-year window following the conviction expired. The five-year window starting from the conviction date expired on October 8, 2018. The petitioner’s application must be decided by Respondent No. 3 within eight weeks of the filing date of any subsequent petitions, if any.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas.Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

 

0

Haryana High Court- Observes good behavior for over 22 years on bail and grants acquittal

Blog ,

TITLE: Yogesh v State of Haryana

Decided On-:02.6.2023

CRM-M No. 27293 of 2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. N.S Shekhawat  

INTRODUCTION- The accused/appellant was found guilty and sentenced to two and a half years of rigorous imprisonment for violating Section 17(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the “NDPS Act”). The present appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction dated April 27, 2005, and order of sentence dated April 29, 2005, passed by the learned Special Judge, Rohtak. The sentences were set to run simultaneously.

FACTS OF THE CASE- According to the evidence presented by the prosecution, on April 30, 2001, Inspector Satbir Singh of the CIA in Rohtak received a top-secret tip that the accused, Yogesh @ Pappe, was selling charas at the “Kashaiyon Wala Chowk” (Butcher’s circle) Indira market in Rohtak. If a raid were to be launched right away, he could have been captured there. In this regard, a note was made in the Daily Dairy Register, and Constable Pardeep Kumar forwarded a copy of the note to the senior police officers. A raiding party was organised, and the group led by Inspector Satbir Singh arrived at the designated location.He identified himself as Yogesh @ Pappe, son of Ramesh, when the police team questioned him. The appellant received a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and was informed of his right to request a search of himself in front of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. The defendant chose to have his search done before a gazetted after responding right away. When the accused was searched at Inspector Satbir Singh’s request, 400 grammes of charas that had been kept by him in the right side pocket of his trousers were discovered, wrapped in polythene paper. Two distinct parcels were made from the five grammes of charas that were separated as a sample. In addition, 100 grammes of opium that was wrapped in polythene paper was found in his shirt’s front pocket, and 5 grammes of that quantity was taken out as a sample and placed in an empty matchbox. The defendants, witnesses, and case materials were presented to Kailash Chand, SHO, Police Station City Rohtak, who confirmed the information with them and affixed his seal, which read “KC,” to each parcel, and told Inspector Satbir Singh to give the case property to MHC while keeping the accused locked up. The challan was presented against the accused before the appropriate court following the necessary investigation.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The appellant’s knowledgeable attorney vehemently argued that because Section 42 of the NDPS Act’s mandatory provisions were not followed in this case and there was a violation of those provisions, the appellant should be found not guilty by this Court. Further, the appellant’s knowledgeable attorney argued that PW-4 DSP Kartar Singh was summoned to the scene and made an offer to the accused via notice Ex.PC that the search could be conducted in either his or a Magistrate’s presence.In addition, there was no proof that the seal sample impressions had been created on-site or that the entire process had taken place in the police station. On the other hand, experienced legal representation representing the State of Haryana disagreed with the appellant’s submissions. The learned state attorney argued that the recovery in this case had taken place from a public location, specifically “Kashaiyon Wala Chowk” (butchers’ circle), Indira market, Rohtak. The NDPS Act’s Section 42 would not apply because the recovery was carried out from a public location; instead, Section 43’s provisions would take effect. The argument put forth by the appellant that there was a violation of the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act under the facts and circumstances of the current case is rejected by the court as having no merit. In actuality, Section 50 of the NDPS Act did not mandate that a second notice be given. In this instance, the appellant was already aware of his legal right—as stated in notice —to request that his search be conducted in front of a gazetted officer or a magistrate, as required by law. Therefore, it is impossible to claim that there was a violation of a law’s mandatory provisions, and this Court is likely to reject the aforementioned argument. It was clear that the appellant had paid the fine on the spot that day. Expert legal counsel for the appellant argued that a lenient view could be adopted while still giving him the sentence. The said argument put forth on behalf of the appellant is deemed to have sufficient weight by this Court. This Court is aware that the current appellant had been found to be in possession of contraband. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

0

Accused acquitted under section 22(c) of the NDPS Act by Punjab high court

blog , ,

TITLE: Gurjinder Singh v State of Punjab

Decided On-:01.6.2023

CRA-S-2808-2019 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Sandeep Moudgil

INTRODUCTION-   The trial judge in question, a learned trial judge who presided over the case under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, then proceeded to record a finding of guilt against the defendant. The accused convict has made the decision to file the current criminal appeal before this Court because he is dissatisfied with the above-drawn verdict of conviction as well as the subsequent sentences of imprisonment and fine that the learned convicting Court concerned imposed upon him.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

According to the case’s facts, Along with other law enforcement officers, ASI Nirmal Singh, who was assigned to PS Balachaur in the District of SBS Nagar, was out on patrol to check for dishonest characters travelling from Majaari to the direction of Mehndpur. When the police party arrived close to the Village Mehndpur cremation ground, they saw four people exiting a tube well in Jarnail Singh’s fields. They became terrified at the sight of the police party and tried to flee. They were also being pursued by the police, who caught one of them after he had collapsed in some fields. The person who was caught threw a polythene bag into the fields from his pocket. The bag in question was torn when it was picked up by the investigating officer. The aforementioned bag included four Dispovan-branded syringes, three injections, and intoxicating powder.

He identified himself and his address as Gurjinder Singh @ Ginda when questioned. He then weighed the potent polythene bag that Gurjinder Singh had thrown into the fields and that he had picked up; the weight of the bag was 372 gms. Three injections and four syringes were also placed in another parcel along with the aforementioned intoxicating powder. He sealed both packages with his seal, which had the impression “NS.” The suspect was taken into custody and thoroughly searched. The formal FIR was registered based on the rule that the investigating officer had prepared.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

As a result, he went on to file a charge against the defendant for a violation of Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The accused was presented with the previously stated charge; he pleaded not guilty and demanded a trial.  The prosecution used five witnesses to support its case, and the learned public prosecutor in question then concluded the prosecution’s evidence. However, the prosecution has been able to present convincing evidence that the seizure was recovered, carried out at the crime scene, and then sealed with the appropriate seal impressions. However, reading the FSL report (supra) also reveals that the sealed cloth parcels were received there, keeping the seal impressions on them intact.It would seem that the material was placed in loose cloth parcels after being examined by the concerned chemical examiner, and that these loose cloth parcels were then sent to the person in charge of the malkhana in an unsealed condition.

“The result of the above discussion, is that, this Court finds merit in the appeal, and, is constrained to allow it. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment convicting, and, sentencing the appellant, and, as become recorded by the learned trial Judge concerned, is quashed, and, set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him.”

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

 

Click here to view judgement

0

The court should only use the authority granted by Section 311 CrPC to further the interests of justice.

blog ,

TITLE: Anil Sehgal v State of Punjab

Decided On-: March 10, 2023

CRM-M-8107-2018 (O&M) and CRM-M-8363-2018 (O&M)

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Aman Chaudhary

INTRODUCTION-   The defendant, Vikas Shrivastva, challenges the application in a reply, claiming that he is entitled to a speedy trial under article 21 of the Indian Constitution. While the FDR regarding the alleged incidents was registered in 2007, the challan in the case was filed on November 10, 2009, and the charge in the aforementioned case was framed on June 4, 2011. The case in question dates back to 1993. The prosecution’s case has been hanging since that point due to a lack of prosecution evidence.

FACTS OF THE CASE-

The current petitions have been filed under Section 482 CrPC to set aside the order dated 19.01.2017, Annexure P-11, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Ludhiana, and to issue the proper instructions to the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Ludhiana to consider and decide the applications dated 17.10.2010 and 24.01.2012 arising out of FIR No. 18 dated 28.02.2007, Annexure P-1, registered at Police Station Ladhowal

Allegations against the petitioner included that the complainant, who was the promoter-director of M/s Sutlej Fun Resorts Limited and owned 30% of its shares, provided sureties and securities, including personal undertakings, and signed various loan agreements in order to obtain the loan amount from different financial institutions, including PSIDC and PFC, among others. He also agreed to part with his retained titled deeds in the form of an equitable mortgage. The similarly accused G.D. Agarwal and A.K. Agarwal deposited their respective title deeds to secure the loan facilities, along with other Directors, but they did so with ulterior, dishonest motives from the start. The accused never complied with the PSIDC requirement that no changes to the Board of Directors or management of the company could be made without their prior approval when the loan was sanctioned and granted; however, they forced the complainant to sign an agreement that required him to sell 20% of his shares in favour of G.D. Agarwal and 10% of his shares in favour of Mukesh Khullar, and the remaining 30% of his shares in the company would be paid in full. Instead, they filed a false and baseless criminal complaint against the petitioner and his family members. By transferring the complainant’s share and forging his signatures, they caused the complainant to suffer an injustice and themselves to benefit unfairly. As a result, the case’s challan was delivered on September 21st, 2009.

COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION

The learned trial Court, according to the learned counsel, erred in dismissing the application primarily on the basis of hyper technicality because the complainant lacked locus standi to file it and the prosecution should have been the one to do so. Learned According to the state attorney, the petitioner’s application was correctly rejected by the skilled trial court because it lacked locus standi, and the contested order contains no errors.

With regard to CRM-M-8363-2018, the learned State counsel claims that the applications, Annexures P-7 and P-8, have already been decided, making the petition infructuous. This petition is asking the trial court to direct itself to decide the applications.

Considering the discussion from above, this Court concludes that the order contested in CRM-M-8107-2018 is not unlawful or erroneous. Due to the infructuous disposition of CRM-M-8363-2018, the aforementioned petition is hereby dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by-  Steffi Desousa

Click here to view judgement

 

 

 

1 2 3 4