The Karnataka High Court has recently held that Google reviews cannot be used to prove that a person is a habitual offender as it does not have any legal evidentiary value.
The court made the observation while dealing with a criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail in a cheating case. The plea was opposed by the High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) stating that the petitioner was a habitual offender and that the same could be seen in Google searches wherein the review disclosed that he had cheated a number of persons in the past as well.
However, the bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar refused to accept this argument and taking into account other facts and circumstances of the case, allowed bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
“I do not find any impediment to admit the petitioner for anticipatory bail and the apprehension raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions,” the court said.
A case under Sections 419 (punishment for cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 was registered at CEN Crime Police Station in Ramanagara district.
The case had been filed on the basis of a complaint lodged by a woman in lamp oil business, alleging that she came in contact with one Om Pratap Singh (the petitioner) who was a supplier of liquid paraffin. She claimed that though she paid Rs 52,39,400 to the petitioner via NEFT, she received goods worth Rs 26,31,611 only. She alleged that thereafter she tried to contact the petitioner several times, but he did not respond and this forced her to file a complaint before the police.
Apprehending his arrest in the case, the petitioner approached the Principal Civil Judge (Junior division) & JMFC Court, Magadi, Ramanagara who rejected his plea for pre-arrest bail. Thereafter, he moved the High Court.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner did not have any intention to cheat the complainant and that the delay in supply had been caused due to the war between Ukraine and Russia as he had to get the supply goods from a foreign country.
The counsel further informed the court that the petitioner had already remitted Rs 8 lakh to the account of the complainant and he further assured the court that the remaining amount of Rs 16 lakh will also be paid in due course.
The court held that Section 419 IPC was not attracted in the instant case as there was no impersonation and the only allegation was that in spite of receiving the amount for supply of the goods, the petitioner had not supplied the same.
The court also observed that the record disclosed that there was some transaction between the parties and one-third of the amount had already been returned to the complainant.
Accordingly, the court allowed the anticipatory bail to the petitioner on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs 2,00,000 with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial court while imposing conditions to ensure his presence and cooperation during the investigation.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment