Santosh Bardiyas v. State of Madhya Pradesh
In the High Court of Madya Pradesh
Crl. Rev. 1484/2021
Before Justice Vishal Dhagat
Decided on December 1, 2021

Relevancy of the case: Applicability of Section 66D in a case involving forgery of lease documents

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 2(k), 66D)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120B, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The applicant ran a photocopy shop which had a computer and a printer.
• He prepared a forged lease and gave it to the complainant. Further, the allegations also state that the co-accused forged signatures on the document.
• The applicant and co-accused made a lot of money from this.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that the charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were not applicable. Only the charge under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is applicable in the present case as it is a special enactment. The counsel further relied on the case of Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government of NCT Delhi (2017) 2 SCC 18.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that Section 66D is not applicable in the present case and neither is the judgement used applicable.

Opinion of the Bench

• The act committed by the accused is not covered under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as he was charged with forging a document for the purpose of cheating another person.
• Moreover, the applicant does not benefit from the judgement used by him.

Final Decision

• The bench found no error in the framing of the charges.
• The bench also dismissed the application.

Marc Pereira, an undergraduate student at Rizwi Law College, Mumbai, prepared this case summary during his internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2022.