Satish Bijendra Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of Maharashtra

The Cyber Blog IndiaCase SummaryLeave a Comment

Satish Bijendra Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of Maharashtra

Satish Bijendra Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of Maharashtra
In the High Court of Bombay
Crl. B.A. 1261/2014
Before Justice Sadhana S. Jadhav
Decided on January 6, 2015

Relevancy of the case: Bail application in a case involving the hacking of an organization’s email ID and misappropriating ₹1.25 crores

Statutes & Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 65, 66(c)(d))
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • This an application which was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant is charged under Sections 420, 417, 419, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 65 and 66(c)(d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
  • Dindayal Magasvargiya Suthgirni (Society), Islampur is involved in the purchase of cotton and the said society functions as a spinning factory. On 25.11.2013, the applicant had inquired about the account balance of the spinning factory.
  • The spinning mill was told that the amounts were transmitted via RTGS on 19.11.2013, 20.11.2013, 21.11.2013 and 22.11.2013 based on the e-mail ID sent to the Bank.
  • It was found that a sum of ₹30 lakhs was transferred to Om Enterprises’ account on 19.11.2013. ₹35 lakhs had been transmitted to HDFC Bank Ltd, Udaipur on 20.11.2013. to Sunil Gupta’s account. A transaction amounting to ₹35,30,000/- was credited to the Ejajul Seth’s account at Calcutta on 21.11.2013, and ₹25 lakhs were credited to the Vimal Foundation’s account on 22.11.2013. The cash which was misappropriated was ₹1,25,30,000/-.
  • It was found in the investigation process that the applicant had posed as Sunil Gupta and had submitted forged PAN card, phone bill, IDBI Bank extract, as well as other papers relating to the identity of Sunil Gupta for opening an account in the bank. Thus, the applicant was convicted. It is obvious that he was benefited by ₹ 35,30,000/-.

Opinion of the Bench

  • The economic crime of illegally crediting the money from one bank to another through hacking of e-mail ID and misappropriating the sum in fake accounts has become prevalent. The accused, therefore, deserves no sympathy from the Court.

Final Decision

  • The application for the grant of bail was denied as it lacked merits.

This case summary has been prepared by Akshara Kamath, an undergraduate student at Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in June/July 2020.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *