Google Reviews Have No Legal Evidentiary Value, Can't Be Used To Argue That Accused Is Habitual Offender: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court recently rejected an argument that 'Google Reviews' against the accused show that he is a habitual offender, by holding that Google Reviews have no legal evidentiary value.A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar thus granted anticipatory bail to 71 years old Om Pratap Singh, apprehending arrest in a case registered for Cheating and impersonation in...
The Karnataka High Court recently rejected an argument that 'Google Reviews' against the accused show that he is a habitual offender, by holding that Google Reviews have no legal evidentiary value.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar thus granted anticipatory bail to 71 years old Om Pratap Singh, apprehending arrest in a case registered for Cheating and impersonation in business. He is booked under Sections 419, 420 of IPC and under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2008.
The complainant, who is in the business of lamp oil, alleged that the Petitioner-accused duped her in a transaction for liquid paraffin. She claimed that she paid to the accused Rs.52,39,400/- in two instalments but the latter supplied goods worth of Rs.26,31,611/- only.
The petitioner on the other hand submitted that he had no intention of cheating the complainant and the delivery was delayed on account of disruption in supply chain amid Russia-Ukraine war. He submitted that an amount of Rs. 8 lakhs was returned to the the complainant and the remaining amount of Rs. 16 lakhs, which stood invested, would also be returned in due course.
The Prosecution however opposed the plea by saying that Petitioner is a habitual offender and this can be traced through Google search wherein the review discloses that he has cheated a number of persons in this regard.
Findings:
The bench noted that section 419 of IPC is not attracted in the instant case as there is no impersonation and the only allegation is that in spite of receiving the amount for supply of the goods, the petitioner has not supplied the same which is subject to allegation of cheating.
Rejecting the argument of the prosecution the bench said, "The argument addressed by the learned HCGP that the google search discloses that the petitioner has cheated a number of persons which is evident from the review cannot be accepted as it does not have any legal evidentiary value."
Noting that there was a transaction between the complainant and accused and the petitioner has now agreed to return the remaining amount due the bench said there is no impediment to admit the petitioner for anticipatory bail.
Accordingly it granted anticipatory bail to the accused on executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000 with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court and also imposed other conditions.
Case Title: OM PRATAP SINGH v. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8879/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 427
Date of Order: 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
Appearance: R. GOPALA KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE for petitioner; RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP for respondent