ORDER : The accused has assailed the order dated 21.03.2016 by which his application under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge in G.R Case No.5492 of 2012 has been dismissed, in part - the learned Magistrate has found that there is no material to frame charge against the accused under section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000. 2. In the order dated 21.03.2016, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi has observed as under: "In the present case cognizance of the offence has been taken u/s 66(A), 66(D) & 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000. So far as section 66(A) of the Act is concerned, in the case of "Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India" (2015) 5 SCC 1 , the same has been declared ultra-vires. As such the accused can't be charged for the said offence. Sec. 67 of the Act prescribes punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. This is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had sent any obscene material in electronic form. As such the accused also can't be charged for offence u/s 67 of the Act. Section 66(D) of the Act prescribes punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource. From the judicial record it appears that the allegation is that the alleged e-mail was sent in the name of Mr. Manish Sinha. From perusals of the case diary it appears that the IP address from which the alleged e-mail was sent was created by using the mobile number of the accused. There is sufficient material available at para-19,23,24 of the case diary to frame charge against the accused named above. In above view of the matter the accused above named is discharged u/s 66(A) & 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. However, as there is sufficient material available on record to frame charge u/s 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the accused is directed to remain physically present in Court on 25.04.2016 for hearing the charge." 3. This is second round of litigation and in the last more than 7 years the trial has struck. However, as there is sufficient material available on record to frame charge u/s 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the accused is directed to remain physically present in Court on 25.04.2016 for hearing the charge." 3. This is second round of litigation and in the last more than 7 years the trial has struck. Aggrieved of the order dated 03.04.2014 by which the discharge petition filed by him was rejected, the petitioner approached this Court in Criminal Revision No. 763 of 2014 and by an order dated 27.02.2015 the order refusing discharge petition of the petitioner was set aside and the matter was sent to the Court below to pass a reasoned and speaking order. This revision petition was filed on 21.04.2016 and by an order dated 25.04.2016 further proceeding in G.R. Case No.5492 of 2012 was stayed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the matter came on Board on 12.05.2016, 19.05.2016 and 04.07.2016 and the interim order was continued by the Court. It was on 06.08.2018 that the petitioner impleaded opposite party no.2 and thereafter he did not take any step for early hearing of this revision petition. On 15.02.2021, this criminal revision petition was listed before me for hearing. On that day, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner hearing of criminal revision petition was deferred for 26.02.2021. 4. Mr. Pravin Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the materials collected during investigation do not connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and, moreover, the materials on record do not constitute the offence under section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000. The learned counsel would further submit that the letter dated 06.12.2012 written by Inspector General of Police, CID has been taken as a gospel truth and the materials collected by the investigating officer which are recorded in case-diary particularly in paragraph nos.19,23 and 24 do not refer to any enquiry with regard to I.P address 10.63.173.36. 5. On 04.10.2012, a complaint was received by the officer-in-charge of Mesra PS from Dr. Vijay Nath and Dr. R.K. Lal. They have stated that an e-mail making false allegations about standards of VLSI workshop and competence of the teachers was sent on 17.08.2012 to Prof. S.K. Ghorai who was the Head of Department, ECE. Prof. S.K. Ghorai forwarded the e-mail to Dr. Vijay Nath, Dr. R.K. Lal and Prof. Vijay Nath and Dr. R.K. Lal. They have stated that an e-mail making false allegations about standards of VLSI workshop and competence of the teachers was sent on 17.08.2012 to Prof. S.K. Ghorai who was the Head of Department, ECE. Prof. S.K. Ghorai forwarded the e-mail to Dr. Vijay Nath, Dr. R.K. Lal and Prof. N. Gupta and that is how the matter came into light. The informants through their own efforts at BIT Network Room could trace the origin of e-mail. They found that e-mail sent to Prof. S.K. Ghorai was from a private I.P 10.63.173.36. The informants finding that it was a cyber crime and through e-mails reputation of the Institute was targeted lodged a written complaint with the police. Accordingly, Sadar PS Case No.273 of 2012 was registered on 07.10.2012 under sections 66A(a) & (D) and 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 against Manish Sinha. 6. The first e-mail which was sent on 17.08.2012 at 10:50 AM in the shadow name of Manish Sinha reads as under: "Dear Sir, I am a pre final year student of ECE at KIT, Orissa. I came to know that your department is organizing a workshop on VLSI. Sir, I would like to bring to your kind notice that in the recent past I have seen this a regular feature of your department to organize such short term courses. This is really a good practice, but what hurts me most is that every time you people promote that there will be trainers from industry to teach us the course, and when we attend, we find same old faculties who have conducted the courses previously are organizing it. Moreover the advertisement also is the same 'Trained manpower' blah blah. Sir, this is a clear indication that a reputed institute like yours are just trying to make money out of it. This time I am filing an RTI to get the information of the industrial experts you have called for organizing such courses in the past. Sir, we are the people form middle class. We understand the importance of such course, but when we are being made fool, this hurts us most. I have attended a course previously also, and very sorry to say that the coordinator Dr. Vijay Nath, even doesn't know how to speak english, leave aside the concept of VLSI. Dr. Sir, we are the people form middle class. We understand the importance of such course, but when we are being made fool, this hurts us most. I have attended a course previously also, and very sorry to say that the coordinator Dr. Vijay Nath, even doesn't know how to speak english, leave aside the concept of VLSI. Dr. Nath was talking about chip level design and other aspects of CMOS, but I doubt whether he even understands, what is CMOS? " Even my english would be better than him, and I do not understand how does he qualifies for a post of Associate Professr: Similarly was the case with Dr. Lal. He taught us concepts of semiconductor devices, and sorry to say that his knowledge of semiconductor is poor than a class 12th student. Anyway, AICTE has left such institution to organise the course, but sorry to say that they are just making money out of it. Mr. Nath claims that after training we will be ready for industry standards, but let me tell you frankly, after this, we loose our interest in VLSI, hell to do with industry. This points are being mentioned to you because you heads the department. Take the steps, else reputation of such institution because of such people are at stake. Yours truly Manish Sinha 7. After a verification search the following information was provided to professor S.K. Ghorai on 24.08.2012: Dear Sir, Thanks for your mail. I think you are able to understand who generated this mail and send to you after reading the mail in details. No one student in the name of Manish Sinha attended my course from SSVD-2011 to ITESD-2012. Each and every participant records having with us feedback form, test copy, DD receipt & Registration form (hard & soft copy). Whenever you want you can see details. This person is miss guiding. He is not a student, he may be faculty. Let us wait I give details about him. He want to disturb the continuous progress of Department. I am not working for myself. I am working for Department & Institute with a compitant group. I am from Department, Department is not from me. About the money 70% of earning go to Institute directly, 30% to coordinating team that you know very well in details. He want to disturb the continuous progress of Department. I am not working for myself. I am working for Department & Institute with a compitant group. I am from Department, Department is not from me. About the money 70% of earning go to Institute directly, 30% to coordinating team that you know very well in details. What is benefit/loss to students that will claim for my eligibility of Associate Professor; Interview & expert pannel with you decide my eligibility criteria. I am not beyond the board. This point indicates a person who is commenting on me is not able to do any challenging job nor eligible for the post. Any way he express own views. He want disturb me all the ways, but I shall try to do best possible work continuous. I believe on GOD. Please take care such type of mail/letters. Thanks & best regards. 8. An e-mail was sent to cyber cell of Jharkhand Police on 31.08.2012 for verifying whether Manish Sinha the sender of e-mail dated 17.08.2012 was a fake or a real person and who is the person who has sent e-mail from IP 10.63.173.26. In course of the investigation, a report from Mr. Anurag Gupta, Inspector General of Police, CID vide Letter No.320/C dated 06.12.2012 was received by Dr. S.K. Ghorai that on inquiry it was found that the impugned e-mail ID was created by using mobile no.9471503579 and the said mobile number belonged to the petitioner, namely, Vishal H. Shah. By an order dated 04.07.2013, cognizance for the offence under sections 66A(a), 66D and 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 9. Section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000 reads as under : "Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource-Whoever by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees" 10. The offence under section 66D refers to cheating by personation which would necessarily imply impersonating an individual. The offence under section 66D refers to cheating by personation which would necessarily imply impersonating an individual. Cheating is defined under section 415 of the Indian Penal Code under which there can be three modes of cheating (i) by deceiving any person to induce to deliver any property to other person (ii) by deceiving any person to consent that another person shall retain any property, and (iii) by intentionally inducing the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything. The third category of acts constituting cheating do not refer to property alone as the subject matter and the offence would be complete if the act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person in body, mind, reputation or property. The offence of cheating by personation is defined under section 416 of the Indian Penal Code and explanation to the main provision provides that the offence is committed whether the individual impersonated is a real or imaginary person. Section 66D takes within its sweep use of "computer resource" for an act of cheating by impersonation. The term "computer resource" which is defined under section 2(k) means computer, computer system, computer network, data and computer data base or software. 11. The materials collected during the investigation establish that someone impersonating in the name of Manish Sinha, a fictitious person, has sent e-mails which contain serious allegations against the Institute. If the imputations made by the sender are proved false and the prosecution establishes during the trial that the petitioner is the person who has sent the offending e-mails he would be liable under section 66D of Information and Technology Act. The learned Magistrate in the order dated 21.03.2016 has referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and having taken note of the materials on record came to a conclusion that there is sufficient material to frame charge under section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000. The impugned order dated 21.03.2016 does not contain elaborate discussions on merits of the matter - and, which is not a requirement at this stage; but the learned Magistrate has applied his mind can be easily gathered from a plain reading of the order under challenge. The learned Magistrate was aware of the judgment in "Shreya v. Union of India" (2015) 5 SCC1 and he has rightly declined to take cognizance of section 66A. The learned Magistrate was aware of the judgment in "Shreya v. Union of India" (2015) 5 SCC1 and he has rightly declined to take cognizance of section 66A. The learned Magistrate has rightly observed that section 67 involves transmission of obscene material in electronic form and finding no allegation in this regard the learned Magistrate has rightly held that a charge under section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 cannot be framed against the petitioner. 12. In exercising jurisdiction under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the revisional Court would not go into the merits of the case to find out whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction. While the revisional Court can look into the factual matrix of the case, the revisional jurisdiction should normally be exercised only on a question of law. 13. In "Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Anil Kumar Bhunja" (1979) 4 SCC 274 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "18. It may be remembered that the case was at the stage of framing charges; the prosecution evidence had not yet commenced. The Magistrate had, therefore, to consider the above question on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating police officer. At this stage, as was pointed out by this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence." 14. The case of the prosecution is that an e-mail through a fake e-mail ID was sent to Prof. S.K. Ghorai which according to the complainants was intended at lowering the reputations of the Institute and in turn their reputation in the eyes of their peers. The case of the prosecution is that an e-mail through a fake e-mail ID was sent to Prof. S.K. Ghorai which according to the complainants was intended at lowering the reputations of the Institute and in turn their reputation in the eyes of their peers. At this stage the stand taken by an accused is not relevant except to the extent that an admitted document and the facts emerging from the materials collected by the prosecution must be kept in mind. Looking at the materials on record, particularly, allegations by the informants which they have reiterated in their statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate has held that a prima-facie case constituting the offence under section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000 is made out. The plea raised by the petitioner are essentially his defence truth or otherwise of which can be tested only during the trial. Whether the e-mail I.D was fake one, whether a private person can create a fake e-mail I.D or whether the mobile number of the petitioner can be used by a third person are the issues which the Courts not being experts cannot decide without evidence. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find no merit in this criminal revision petition. The impugned order dated 21.03.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi does not warrant interference by this Court and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No.454 of 20 16 is dismissed. 16. The interim order dated 25.04.2016 is vacated. 17. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned through 'Fax'.