Adv Adil Rashid Bhat & Associates

20/04/2025

Cyber fraud is real. But so is the law. Stay alert, stay safe — and let Section 66D of the IT Act be your shield. Report, protect, and fight back!

Cyber Fraud and Its Legal Remedies in India, incorporating the latest legal references from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act, 2000:

🛡️ Cyber Fraud in India: Understanding the Threat and Legal Remedies
In our increasingly digital world, cyber fraud has emerged as a significant threat. From phishing scams to identity theft, cybercriminals exploit technology to deceive and defraud unsuspecting individuals.

🔍 What is Cyber Fraud?
Cyber fraud involves deceptive practices conducted through digital means to unlawfully obtain money, data, or personal information. Common examples include:

Phishing Emails: Fraudulent messages that trick individuals into revealing sensitive information.

Fake Websites: Deceptive sites designed to mimic legitimate ones to steal data.

Identity Theft: Unauthorized use of someone's personal information for fraudulent purposes.

⚖️ Legal Provisions Addressing Cyber Fraud in India
Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000:
Addresses cheating by personation using computer resources.
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years and/or fine up to ₹1 lakh.
Source

Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:
Replaces the earlier Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), dealing with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.
Source

🛡️ Preventive Measures
Be Vigilant: Do not share personal information, passwords, or OTPs with unverified sources.

Secure Your Devices: Use updated antivirus software and firewalls.

Verify Sources: Before clicking on links or downloading attachments, ensure they are from trusted sources.

Report Suspicious Activity: If you suspect fraudulent activity, report it immediately.

📞 Reporting Cyber Crimes
Victims can report cybercrimes through the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal:
www.cybercrime.gov.in

Stay Informed, Stay Protected!
Cybersecurity is a shared responsibility. By staying informed and vigilant, we can collectively combat cyber fraud.

08/02/2025

https://www.facebook.com/100064983660030/posts/1005386231637490/

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday held that it is the fundamental right of every person arrested to be informed of the grounds of arrest as s

08/02/2025

https://www.facebook.com/100064983660030/posts/1004705855038861/

The Supreme Court on Friday said that family members of a person accused of domestic violence cannot be implicated in the criminal case for not extending suppor

12/03/2023

A division bench of Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and RM Joshi held that providing proper medical treatment and facilities to prisoners is the duty of the State government.

12 March 2023

₹10L comp for family of undertrial denied medical treatment, leading to death - Bombay HC
A division bench of Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and RM Joshi held that providing proper medical treatment and facilities to prisoners is the duty of the State government.

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently ordered the Maharashtra government to pay a compensation of ₹10 lakh to the family of an undertrial prisoner, who died after being denied proper medical treatment by the jail authorities [Vishnu Sandipan Kute vs State of Maharashtra].

A division bench of Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and RM Joshi held that providing proper medical treatment and facilities to prisoners is the duty of the State government.

It noted that the deceased was a young man of only 32 years of age and that his wife, children and parents were dependent on him.

It also took into account the fact that the deceased was not a hardened criminal involved in some grave or serious crime.

"He lost his life only due to the failure of the jail authority to provide medical treatment. It need not be emphasised that the right to health enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India particularly of a prisoner who is deprived of his personal liberty, albeit as per the procedure of law, cannot be ignored," the bench observed in its order passed on March 2.

The Court also highlighted that the Supreme Court has in several decisions held that the right to life includes right to live with human dignity.

"Hence the duty of the State to provide medical treatment to the prisoners, to take care and ensure the safety and security of the prisoners and treat them with human dignity needs no affirmation. The Government having failed in its duty, the petitioners being the parents, widow and the children of the deceased, are entitled for compensation," the bench held.

The bench was seized of a plea filed by the widow the deceased Pratap Kute, her two children and the parents of the deceased

Kute had died while in judicial custody on February 27, 2012.

In the plea, the family alleged that he was already suffering from spondylosis and severe pain and had even filed an application before the Magistrate on February 7, 2012.

He was admitted to the hospital in Beed only after his health condition deteriorated. The hospital at Beed referred him to the Government Medical College, Aurangabad.

On the other hand, the State claimed that the deceased was HIV positive and was also suffering from tuberculosis.

However, the bench noted that from February 7 till February 23, the day he was admitted to the hospital in Beed, he was not afforded any medical treatment except for some blood tests.

The reports of such tests were also received only after his death.

"It was the duty of the superintendent of the jail and all the other concerned to ensure that necessary medical facility was provided to him. The records further reveals the endorsement by the constable, which itself reflects total callous and insensitive mindset of the police authorities as well as the jail authorities," the Court opined.

The bench further noted that despite his request to provide medical treatment, no timely medical aid was provided to him except for collecting his blood sample, report of which was also received only after his demise.

"In our considered view, there has been total negligence and lapse on the part of the jail authorities in providing adequate, effective and proper medical treatment and on the part of the police guard on duty who declined to shift the deceased to Government Medical College, Aurangabad which has resulted in his death," the Court said.

Therefore, his parents, widow and children have been deprived of love and affection of their loved one due to his untimely death caused due to negligence of the jail authority and the police guard.

"In such circumstances, though we cannot compensate human life in true sense, we are inclined to award compensation of ₹10 lakh," the bench ordered.

Advocate NR Thorat appeared for the Petitioners.

Additional Public Prosecutor MM Nerlikar represented the State.

08/03/2023

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/adil-rashid-bhat-78198b219_law-civil-strategy-activity-7038937351741452288-qWgi?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android

12/01/2023

What is presumption regarding power of attorney executed before notary?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Writ Petition No. 40 of 2011

Decided On: 16.03.2011

Ashish C. Shah Vs. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd.,

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
J.H. Bhatia, J.
Citation: 2011(4) MHLJ 288

Document No. 2 is the original power of attorney tendered in evidence along with affidavit of evidence. The said power of attorney appears to have been executed on behalf of the complainant company by its director Ashwin Sheth. The affidavit appears to have been sworn in before and has been notarized by the Notary Public. Section 85 of the Evidence Act provides that the Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power of attorney and to have been executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Counsel or Vice Counsel or representative of the Central Government, was so executed and authenticated. Section 4 of the Evidence Act provides that whenever it is directed by the Evidence Act that the Court shall presume a fact, as it shall regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. In view of Section 85 read with Section 4 of the Evidence Act, the power of attorney purporting to have been executed and authenticated before the Notary Public shall be presumed to have been executed and so authenticated unless and until it is disproved. Therefore, the burden lies on the accused to establish that the said power of attorney was not duly executed and authenticated by the person by whom it purports to have been executed. In view of this legal position, no objection could be taken to the admission and exhibition of the original power of attorney.

03/12/2022

https://www.facebook.com/100064651214364/posts/514998163998553/?mibextid=Nif5oz

TheOrissa High Court has held that charge under Section 498-A of t

30/11/2022

https://www.lawweb.in/2015/07/when-plaintiff-can-be-permitted-to-lead.html?m=1

In any event, on going through the above extracts, it is evident that the respondent/ plaintiff has only led affirmative evidence with reg...

30/09/2022

https://www.shiksha.com/news/sc-verdict-on-aibe-to-be-a-post-enrollment-exam-questions-raised-on-employment-until-clearing-aibe-seniority-read-blogId-103771

Supreme Court final Verdict on AIBE is to conduct it as a Post-Enrollment exam, Questions raised on Employment until clearing AIBE, Seniority; Read

29/09/2022

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/09/29/delhi-high-court-section34-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-fraud-public-policy-arbitral-tribunal-international-bar-association-rules-international-arbitration-governmenta-authority-nation/

In a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside of the arbitral award dated 14.09.2015 allowing

13/03/2022

Affidavit – Affidavits filed are not mere sheet of paper but a solemn statement made before a person authorized to administer oath or to accept affirmation- Court was considering an affidavit attested by an Advocate in terms of Section 3(2) of the Oaths Act, 1969 – The conduct of appellant to attest an affidavit without oath and the attestation on the representation of the respondent that it bears his signatures, came up for consideration – Court held :“17. The expression ‘affidavit’ has been commonly understood to mean a sworn statement in writing made especially under oath or on affirmation before an authorised Magistrate or officer. Affidavit has been defined in sub-clause (3) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to include ‘affirmation and declaration in the case of person by law allowed to affirm or declare instead of swearing.’ The essential ingredients of an affidavit are that the statements or declarations are made by the deponent relevant to the subject matter and in order to add sanctity to it, he swears or affirms the truth of the statements made in the presence of a person who in law is authorised either to administer oath or to accept the affirmation……” M. Veerabhadra Rao Vs. Tek Chand, 1984(Supp) SCC 571.