IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.1223/2018 BETWEEN:
GOVINDA, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O JAYRAM REDDY, R/AT NO.334, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, CHENNAKESHAWA NAGAR, ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU-560 068 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRAHASA RAI B., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE BY MADIWALA P.S, REPT BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. ANAND KABBURI, POLICE INSPECTOR, F AND M WING, C.C.B, N.T.PET, BENGALURU-560 002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING NO.1219/2010, DATED 23.10.2010 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419,420,468,471,120B OF IPC AND 4(1) R/W 20(a) OF INDIAN TELEGRAPHIC ACT, REGISTERED BY MADIWALA POLICE STATION, NOW RENUMBERED AS C.C.NO.30184/2011, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ACCM, BENGALURU CITY AGAINST HIM.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.3 in C.C.No.30184/2011 pending on the file of I Addl.CMM, Bangalore, registered for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B and 201 of IPC and Sections 4(1) r/w 20A of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
2. FIR registered against the petitioner would reveal that he was running a retail unit and had issued sim-cards to various persons on the basis of forged documents. It is also alleged that sim-cards were issued on the basis of applications submitted by a single person and as such, alleging that there was no verification of the identity of the subscribers before issuance of sim-cards, a Report came to be lodged by the Asst.Commissioner of Police with Madivala police station. Hence, FIR came to be registered against accused persons. Investigation was taken up and charge sheet has been filed.
3. I have heard Sri. B. Chandrahasa Rai, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.
S.Chandrashekaraiah, learned HCGP appearing for Respondent-State.
4. Though, learned counsel appearing for petitioner would vehemently contend that there was no role played by the petitioner and it is accused No.2 who had collected the forged documents, which came to be accepted by the petitioner and as such, no offence can be made out against the petitioner and continuation of proceedings against petitioner would be onerous and as such he prays for same being quashed.
5. It is not in dispute that the Government of India, Ministry of Communications by letter dated 09.08.2012 following the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in WP(C) No.285/2010 dated 27.04.2012 and with reference to licence conditions has directed licensees (service providers) to ensure adequate verification to each and every customer before enrolling such applicant as a subscriber and instructions issued by licensor in this regard from time to time shall be scrupulously followed. In the background of the afore-stated communication, persons who provide the sim-cards are required to follow the afore-stated mandate issued by the Ministry of Communications as it is mandatory.
6. Retailers and distributors are responsible for issuance of sim-cards on receipt of documents relevant to establish identity of the subscribers. They are also responsible to verify the authenticity and genuiness of the documents so furnished by the prospective purchasers. Under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 any violation of the terms of the agreement by the licencee is punishable under Section 20(2) of the Act which is bailable offence and non-cognizable.
7. Keeping this aspect in mind when the facts on hand are examined, it would indicate that petitioner is a retailer having a shop - M/s.Channakeshava Enterprises who sells the sim-cards to prospective purchasers after receiving the same from the distributor. In other words, on the application submitted by the applicant and same being forwarded by the petitioner, the distributor would issue the sim- cards to the applicants. Thus, petitioner is also expected to verify the authenticity and validity of the documents produced by the prospective applicants before forwarding such applications to the distributor for issuing the sim-cards. As to the actual role played by the petitioner either for facilitating in issuing such sim-cards or otherwise is a matter which will have to be examined by the trial court after full fledged trial. It cannot be gain said by the accused from the charge sheet material, that no offence is made-out against the petitioner.
8. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to entertain this petition. Accordingly, it stands rejected.
In view of dismissal of petition, I.A.1/18 for stay does not survive for consideration and same stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE Srl.