Simon Dunolz & Ors v. State of Uttarakhand
In the Uttarakhand High Court
CRA 202/2010
Before Justice Prafulla C. Pant
Decided on February 28, 2011

Relevancy of the case: Creating a breach of trust by cheating a person via electronic mail

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 43, 45)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 406, 420, 235, 120B)
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 374)
• The Foreigner Act, 1946 (Section 14)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The complainant is a resident of Rishikesh, working as a Finance Assistant. She received an email stating that she won a lottery of £ 250,000. In addition, she was to contact Mr Mark White and disclose certain details.
• Consequently, upon disclosing her address and other contact details, she was asked to contact Mr John Finch, who told her of David William’s arrival to India. Subsequently, Mr William asked her to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- for clearing the lottery money at the airport. Further, he also asked her to pay Rs. 33,000/-. The complainant, nonetheless, complied with the said requests.
• The complainant only realized that the accused cheated her after inquiring about the incident with her officer from work. She lodged an FIR against David William, Vincent Clarke and Dr George, another accomplice.
• The Sessions Court found the accused guilty under the relevant sections and sentenced them to imprisonment and fines.
• Hence, the accused filed an appeal against the Sessions Judge’s judgement.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the investigating team had not recorded bank statements regarding the deposits made by the complainant Further, they had not recovered the A.T.M. and chequebooks used in the crime. Therefore, the prosecution had not proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, the counsel also argued that since the investigation agency did not seal SIM Cards and mobiles, meaning that they could be tampered.

Opinion of the Bench

• The bench opined that even after a lapse on the part of the investigating agency, there was sufficient evidence to directly prove the charges against the accused (appellants).

Final Decision

• The bench dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Sessions Court judgement.

इस केस सारांश को हिंदी में पढ़ने के लिए यहाँ क्लिक करें। | To read this case summary in Hindi, click here.