Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Punjab and Haryana Court has ruled that a mobile phone subscriber cannot escape from the liability of a crime by simply claiming that someone else had used the phone.
The onus of explaining how the mobile phone number was used by someone else for the commission of the crime in on the person on whose name the device’s phone number is registered.
Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi said that once the phone is found to be registered on someone’s number and if it has been used for the commission of a crime and that the number has been issued after the biometric verification of KYC of the petitioner, the work of explaining upon how the crime was committed is upon the shoulders of the person on whose name the number is registered.
Justice Sethi ruled this after a petition filed by an accused against the state of Punjab for an anticipatory bail in a case which was registered in September of last year for offences such as cheating and others under Section 420 and 34 of IPC and Section 66 of the IT act registered at the Punjab state cyber crime police station.
His counsel said to the court that he was unnecessarily being roped in the FIR and that he had no faults and the allegations were false.
It was brought into Justice Sethi’s view that the complainant received fake calls from the number registered under accused. Justice Sethi asserted after hearing the arguments of the accused that the counsel of the petitioner had not denied the fact that the mobile phone was being used by the accused.
Justice Sethi stated that it is not the case that the petitioner is not related to the case. As soon as the phone is recovered, the petitioner is needed to be interrogated in custody to find out if he is involved in any other such cases. The judge dismissed the case stating that no ground was made to allow him the benefit.
86540
103860
630
114
59824