MOOT COURT EXERCISE, 2024
Name of the Student:-
Name of the College:- Capital law collage
Roll number
MOOT COURT EXERCISE
BEFORE THE HON I BLE HIGH COURT OF
PUNJAB AND HARYANA
UNDER IT ACT 2000
SUNIL SAGAR
( THE PETITIONER) vs.
SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER,DENA
BANK NIT, FARIDABAD
(THE RESPONDANT)
COUNCIL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
THE RESPONDANT
TABLE CONTENTS
1. Statement of Jurisdiction
2. Statement of facts
3. Issues
4. Summery of Arguments
OF
5. Arguments
OF
STATEMENT JURISDICTION
This Honl ble Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter under the relevant provisions of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Information Technology Act, 2000, as the dispute pertains to
allegations of fraud, forgery, and manipulation of accounts by the petitioner while performing
his duties as an employee of M/S Bhanumati Software and
Telecommunication Ltd. deputed to Dena
OF
STATEMENT FACTS
1 . The Allegations: The Senior Branch
Manager of Dena Bank, NIT, Faridabad filed a complaint against the petitioner, alleging that
he, while working as a software and telecommunications personnel for M/S Bhanumati
Software and Telecommunication Ltd., had access to the banks accounts, including the ledger
and other accounts of the bank.
2. The Fraudulent Act: During the course of account reconciliation, discrepancies were
noted, and it was discovered that the petitioner had a Savings Bank Account No. 21 599 in his
name at the same bank. The petitioner allegedly forged and fabricated entries, transferring
funds from the banks account to his personal account and withdrawing substantial amounts
through fraudulent cheques, cash withdrawals, and
clearing/transferring transactions.
3. Banks Confrontation and Admission: Upon confrontation, the petitioner admitted to
embezzling Rs. 19 Iacs but was reluctant to provide further details regarding the total amount
of fraud. The petitioner assured the bank that he would repay the embezzled amount.
However, no further restitution was made, and the bank proceeded with filing a complaint.
009
4. Investigation and Charges: A case was registered against the petitioner, and after the
investigation, a charge sheet (challan) was filed. The trial court framed charges under Sections
420, 467, 468, and 471 of the pc, as well as under Sections 65 and 66 of the IT Act. The
petitioner pleaded not guilty.
ISSUES
1. Whether the trial court was justified in applying Sections 65 and 66 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. Whether the trial court was justified in referring to Sections 420, 467, 468, and
471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
SUMMERY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Issue 1: The trial court was justified in applying Sections 65 and 66 of the IT Act,
2000, as the petitioner's actions involved tampering with electronic records, which
clearly falls under the purview of these provisions related to computer-related offenses.
009
2. Issue 2: The trial court was also justified in referring to Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of
the IPC, 1860, as the petitioner committed offenses of cheating, forgery, and using forged
documents to misappropriate funds from the bank.
ARGUMENTS
Issue 1 : Whether the trial court was justified in applying Sections 65 and 66 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000.
009
1 . Section 65 of the IT Act Tampering with
Computer Source Code: Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, penalizes any
person who intentionally or knowingly alters, destroys, or conceals any computer source code.
The petitioner, in this case, had access to the banks ledger and accounts and was involved in
forging and fabricating digital entries. His actions involved tampering with the banks electronic
records, which is squarely covered under Section 65 of the IT Act.
2. Section 66 of the IT Act Computer Fraud: Section 66 of the IT Act criminalizes cyber fraud,
including the act of fraudulently or dishonestly manipulating data in a computer system. The
petitioner's actions of transferring money to his personal account and withdrawing amounts
from the bank without authorization constitute computerrelated fraud under this provision. The
trial court's reliance on this section was correct, as the petitioner used his access to the banks
computer systems for fraudulent purposes, leading to wrongful gain to himself and wrongful
loss to the bank.
009
3. Relevant Case Law: The Supreme Court in
Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) recognized that tampering with
digital evidence or fraudulent data manipulation qualifies as a criminal offense under the IT
Act, thus validating the application of Sections 65 and 66 in this case.
Issue 2: Whether the trial court was justified in referring to Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
1 . Section 420 of IPC - Cheating: Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code criminalizes the act of
cheating and dishonestly inducing a person to deliver property or financial benefits. The
petitioner, by forging entries and withdrawing funds from the bank through false pretenses,
clearly committed cheating under this section, as the bank was induced to part with substantial
amounts based on false information and fraudulent actions.
2. Section 467 of IPC - Forgery of Valuable Security: Section 467 defines forgery and
penalizes the act of making a false document with the intention of causing damage or gain. The
petitioner forged documents, including cheques and ledger entries, which were presented as
legitimate banking documents. This amounted to forgery of valuable security, thereby justifying
the charge under Section 467.
3. Section 468 of IPC - Forgery for Purpose of Cheating: Section 468 criminalizes forgery
for the purpose of cheating. The petitioner's intent in forging documents and manipulating
records was to cheat the bank and embezzle funds for his personal gain, thereby fulfilling the
criteria of Section 468.
009
4. Section 471 of IPC - Using Forged
Documents: Section 471 punishes the act of using forged documents as genuine. The petitioner,
by using the forged cheques and account entries to withdraw money from the bank, made use of
forged documents, which is a direct violation of Section 471.
5. Relevant Case Law: In State of
Maharashtra v. M.H. George (1 965), the Supreme Court held that when a person uses forged
documents or manipulates records with an intent to commit fraud, all relevant sections of IPC
dealing with cheating and forgery including section 420, 467,468 and 471 apply.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Petitioner respectfully prays that this Honl ble Court:
009
1. Uphold the decision of the trial court in applying Sections 65 and 66 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, as the petitioner's actions clearly fall within the ambit of computer-
related fraud and data manipulation.
2. Uphold the trial court's application of
Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1 860, as the petitioner's actions
amount to cheating, forgery, and using forged documents to embezzle funds from the bank.
3. Dismiss the petitioner's plea of not guilty
and affirm the charges framed against him in the interest of justice.
LIST OF CASE LAWS:-
1. Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh (2018)
