66a
MANISH KALAMKAR
(Querist) 28 March 2015
This query is : Resolved
trial is going on against me in lower court under i.t. act 66a.
what would be the future of this case in wake of supreme court's quashing of this act?
MANISH KALAMKAR
(Querist) 28 March 2015
sending of offensive messages through mobile phone.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 29 March 2015
After striking down the provision of Section 66 A IT Act by the Supreme Court your case will be dismissed, contact your lawyer.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 29 March 2015
agree with Dr J C vasishta . case would be dismissed
Guest
(Expert) 29 March 2015
I have my own doubt about the retrospective effect of the judgment in the absence of specific direction of the SC or appropriate amendment to sec. 66A to be issued by the Government of India through a Gazette notification to be effective retrospectively.
According to my interpretation, the present judgment indicates that the following writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India have been disposed of in the terms specified in the judgment.
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.21 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.23 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 97 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.199 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 217 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.222 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.225 OF 2013
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.758 OF 2014
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.196 OF 2014
The judgment nowhere indicates that all the pending cases in various courts of India may be treated as dismissed or disposed of according to the aforesaid judgment of the SC.
So, in my opinion, specific direction of the SC is considered necessary to dispose of pending cases u/s 66A or the issue of necessary Gazette notification by the Government of India to make the amendment effective retrospectively.
Anirudh
(Expert) 29 March 2015
Dr. Vashista is absolutely correct. Your case will get dismissed automatically, if it is purely based on Sec.66A of the I.T.Act.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 29 March 2015
But no where in the judgement retrospective date is mentioned, better wait for the final outcome
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 29 March 2015
Prey the court to dismiss the case due to the ruling. Let the court decide.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 30 March 2015
Yes keeping the latest ruling handy, ask your advocate to pray for its dismissal.
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 31 March 2015
Allegations made under different sections of law if based upon the section 66A of the IT Act, those allegations are to be treated as not maintainable.
MANISH KALAMKAR
(Querist) 31 March 2015
alongwith 66a other sections of 465,468,471
were imposed on me.what should i do now?
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 01 April 2015
You may mail me scanned copy of the application filed by the complainant against you to scrutinize the maintainability of the petition, off course against usual professional terms.
Guest
(Expert) 01 April 2015
Nothing is automatic in law. Everything is driven by applications, petitions, appeals, evidences, arguments of lawyers, and delegations of power to the judges.
The big judgment spreading over more than 120 pages, does not contain any enabling sentence to cause all the pending cases in all the courts of the country to be treated as disposed of or with effect from which retrospective date the judgment be treated as effective.
So, even on application if section 66A in the case is treated as void, the case can be tried under sec. 465,468,471, which would need to be contested on merits of the case, itself. Shri Biswanath Roy's long range of experience may prove to be quite helpful to you.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 01 April 2015
This query should not be answered by the experts, as he has hidden the actual facts to obtain results. now he is saying that sections 465,468,471 are also involved.
Guest
(Expert) 01 April 2015
That is the problem with several querists, They their problem can be solved by sharing only a small part of facts.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 02 April 2015
Such querists actually do not have any problem at all, just because the section 66a was in news recently, somebody wants to put an academic query in disguise this way.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 02 April 2015
This is not a play school.Every expert takes out some valuable time to respond to the needy.
MANISH KALAMKAR
(Querist) 02 April 2015
I apologize first of all.i don't want to give trouble anyone.i have given facts to the experts.due to ignorance i did not put all facts at a time.it was my mistake.but all the truth is i am being tried under i.t.act 66a and i.p.c.465,468,471.please guide me what to do.
Guest
(Expert) 02 April 2015
Dear Manish,
Besides offence u/s 66A of IT Act, your case comprised of sections of IPC pointing out towards the offences of forgery, forgery of electronic record for purpose of cheating, and forged document or electronic record being used as genuine one. So, setting aside of sec.66A was not expected to quash the other offences under IPC.
So, your query was quite irrelevant as you were not being tried merely u/s 66A.
Henceforth, if you feel the need of help from the experts, you must not forget to give brief background and description of the case.
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 02 April 2015
@ Respected Mr. Dhingra,
From the posts of Author it appears that he has no knowledge of provisions of law and its seriousness.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 02 April 2015
Actually his lawyer might have briefed him about the case and other details involved, the author appears to cross check his lawyer with the experts here(?)Till the end he has not discussed his case except quoting the sections.
Biswanath Roy
(Expert) 02 April 2015
We need not to entertain him any more on this issue.
