SC lauds Tamil Nadu's use of preventive detention to combat cybercrime
'It is a good trend coming from the state to use preventive detention laws against cyber offenders. It is a very welcome approach,' a bench of justices Sandeep Mehta and Joymalya Bagchi said on Monday.
The court was hearing a petition of the father of Abhijeet Singh, detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982 (commonly referred to as the Goondas Act), for allegedly duping a woman of ₹ 84.5 lakh in a cyber fraud.
The Theni district collector issued the detention order on August 23, 2024, based on a Cyber Crime Branch complaint. Singh was allegedly part of an organised cybercrime network. He allegedly defrauded the woman and invested over ₹ 12 lakh in companies under his and his family's names to conceal the proceeds.
The court highlighted the severity of such offences and their broader economic consequences. 'Normal criminal laws are not proving successful against these offenders.'
The court appreciated special preventive mechanisms, such as detention laws, to contain the growing threat of cyber fraud, which often leaves victims financially and emotionally devastated.
In its submissions, the Tamil Nadu government underlined the gravity of the offence and the impact of such frauds on the economy. It told the court that its probe led to the recovery of ₹ 44,000 in cash, over 100 credit and debit cards, five mobile phones, and 27 bank accounts; 17 of which were allegedly used in similar frauds across India.
The court noted that the Tamil Nadu government filed a response but adjourned the matter until June 25 since the document was unavailable before the bench.
Singh's counsel, advocate Laxmikant Matadan Shukla, argued the alleged cybercrime was a 'solitary act' and that his client had no previous criminal antecedents. He called preventive detention for a first-time offence excessive. Shukla said the Madras high court failed to appreciate this while dismissing the plea against the detention order on March 28. He argued that sufficient time was not given to his client to respond to the notice issued. Shukla added an advisory board, which upheld the detention, overlooked this procedural lapse.
The Supreme Court agreed to examine the claims but clarified, in its preliminary observations, that it could not reduce the period of detention in a writ proceeding. 'Period of detention cannot be decided by the court in writ jurisdiction. If the detention order has no basis, the order itself must go, but the period cannot be curtailed. It is the discretion of the state.'
The state defended the detention, saying Singh was informed and equipped to respond to the proceedings. It added that Singh, a native Punjabi speaker and an MBA residing in Delhi, was served all necessary documents in English and Hindi, which he comprehended well enough to make detailed representations before the detaining authority, the advisory board, and the government.
The high court upheld the detention, observing that no material was presented to show Singh was deprived of the right to make an effective representation. 'No doubt, reasonable time must be given to the detenu to make effective representation, and the said opportunity to be heard cannot be a farce or empty formality. However, in this case, there is no material explicitly or implicitly to infer that the detenu was deprived of his right.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
IPR violation: Supreme Court upholds Asian Paints right to appeal as 'victim'
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled a company can be called a victim under the Code of Criminal Procedure and file an appeal against an acquittal order in criminal cases including intellectual property rights ( IPR ) violations. A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, therefore, allowed the appeal of Asian Paints and set aside the verdict of the Rajasthan High Court, which dismissed its appeal against the acquittal of one Ram Babu, who was allegedly found selling counterfeit paint products under the brand name. "A neat question of law of significance is raised herein, namely, as to whether the appellant would fall under the definition of 'victim' in terms of Section 2(wa) read with the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC or whether Section 378 of the CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances of the present case," Justice Amanullah in the judgement said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like How Retirees Can Potentially Minimize RMD Taxes SmartAsset Learn More Undo Clearing the legal position, the verdict pointed out corporate entities affected by intellectual property rights violations could pursue criminal proceedings as the victim. Asian Paints, a leading manufacturer in the paint industry for over 73 years, engaged an IPR consultancy firm, M/s Solution, to track and take action against counterfeiters. Live Events During a market investigation in February 2016, the IPR consultancy firm found counterfeit products resembling Asian Paints' trademarks at the shop of "Ganpati Traders" at Tunga in Rajasthan. It was owned by accused Ram Babu. Following a police inspection, 12 buckets of allegedly fake paints were seized. However, after the trial and a subsequent appeal, the trial court acquitted Ram Babu. Asian Paints challenged the acquittal, but the high court dismissed its appeal, saying only the original complainant and not the aggrieved company could file such an appeal. The top court said the term "victim" under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC includes any person, natural or juristic, who suffers loss or injury due to the alleged offence. Asian Paints, as the entity whose brand and reputation were harmed, squarely fits this definition, it said. "In the present case, there cannot be any two opinions, that ultimately, it is the Appellant who has suffered due to the counterfeit/fake products being sold/attempted to be sold as having been manufactured by the Appellant. The Appellant would suffer financial loss and reputational injury if such products would be bought by the public under the mistaken belief that the same belonged to the Appellant's brand," it said. The order continued, "We are constrained to observe that the finding of the High Court that the Appellant could not have maintained the appeal before it would amount to completely negating the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC..." It is clear that the right to appeal accrues on the "victim" from the instance of a court acquitting the accused, the top court added.
NDTV
42 minutes ago
- NDTV
' Udaipur Files ' Producers Move Supreme Court To Challenge High Court Stay Order
New Delhi: Uncertainty over the release of the film 'Udaipur Files' continues as the producers have moved to the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court, which ordered a stay, while the petitioners against the release today presented their case before the Centre. The Supreme Court will be hearing the matter tomorrow. Meanwhile, the petitioners today gave a representation to the Centre over the stay on the film's release. The petitioners told NDTV that they have requested the Centre to lift the interim stay Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing for the filmmakers, appealed for an urgent hearing in the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court order. Mr Bhatia told the court that the theatres were set to screen the film on Friday, but the court stayed the release on Thursday at 8 PM. The petitioners had contended before the high court that the sole purpose of the film is to vilify one particular (Muslim) community, and it is the worst form of hate speech. Only 12 hours were left for the release of the movie when the ban was issued, he told the court. He further informed the court that a partial working day bench of the top court has refused to grant an urgent hearing to stay the release and yet the high court stayed the release. The Delhi High Court last week had stayed the release of the movie till Monday, which is said to be based on the brutal murder of a tailor from Udaipur over a post he shared on social media. While directing the Centre to decide the matter in one week, the high court said that the petitioners can also press the Centre for further stay beyond Monday. The high court, while granting a stay, noted that the producer's reply included an admission that a teaser of the movie was released without certification. "It is thus apparent that the producer has admitted uploading a teaser which contained even portions of the film that were ordered to be taken down," the bench said. The court noted that the producer's reply included an admission that a teaser of the movie was released without certification. "It is thus apparent that the producer has admitted uploading a teaser which contained even portions of the film that were ordered to be taken down," the bench said. It was observed that a trailer was certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on July 2 with cuts from the teaser, which was uploaded on June 26. The film was cleared by the board for screening on June 20.
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
SC told Centre has exhausted options to save Kerala nurse sentenced to death in Yemen
New Delhi, July 14 (UNI) The Central government on Monday informed the Supreme Court that it has exhausted all possible options to save Kerala nurse Nimisha Priya, who has been sentenced to death in Yemen for the murder of a Yemeni national. During the hearing of a plea seeking directions to use diplomatic channels to save Priya from execution (Save Nimisha Priya International Action Council v. Union of India), Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani told a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta that the government has explored all methods, including negotiations, but nothing has worked so far. The AG submitted, "Negotiating link has also been done. There is a point to which Government of India can go. We have reached it. We also told the public prosecutor if the execution could be suspended. But it has not worked out. Nothing matters to the Yemen government. "We did not go much public about it. We also got involved with a sheikh influential there, it did not work out. We got an informal communication that execution would be put in abeyance, but we don't know if it will work out. This is not an area where the government can be asked to do something beyond a defined limit." Justice Mehta observed that the petitioner claims blood money has been arranged. The AG responded, "But they say it is a question of honour and they don't accept it. We don't know if it changes with more money. But as of now, it is at a standstill." The petitioner's lawyer submitted that good samaritans are not able to do anything since it involves Yemen. The AG replied, "Yes, nothing is happening. The problem is we can't say 'please do it' and they will listen to us." The petitioner also submitted a willingness to pay a higher blood money amount. The AG further informed the court that the Joint Secretary, External Affairs, was also present and briefing him. He added, "There is a communication even at 10:30 am requesting for suspension. But nothing has happened. This may even prove counterproductive. These are highly confidential matters." After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court said, 'We have heard the AG. List on Friday. Let parties inform us the status.' UNI SNG PRS
