THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6072 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Suresh Kumar Reddy the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Notice not served on the first respondent. 2. Both these petitioners are A-1 and A-2 in C.C.No.1139 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against both of them are those punishable under Sections 420, 379 and 120B IPC, Sections 4, 20 and 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and also Section 66 read with Section 75 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short – the Act). The substance of the accusation is that both these petitioners used their equipment such as computers and their connected material to facilitate making of telephone calls and made profits to the detriment of the others who are entitled to do it. It is not necessary to go into these details as the allegations made in the charge sheet do show the offences against them. 3. The learned counsel for petitioners however pointed out that according to Section 78 of the Act an offence punishable under the said Act has to be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and therefore the charge sheet in so far as the offences under the said Act are concerned should be quashed as the investigation of said offence is made by an inspector of police. He further says that Section 78 of the said Act is mandatory. It may however be noted that there are other offences also i.e. Sections 420, 379 and 120B IPC and Sections 4, 20 and 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which can be investigated by an inspector of police. Hence, in this quash petition, as the matter relates to the validity of investigation regarding the offence under the Act, I do not propose to express any opinion as the petitioners can raise this plea before the concerned Magistrate so far as the offences under the Act are concerned. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and this petition is accordingly dismissed. It shall however be open for the petitioners to raise all the objections including the one relating to Section 78 of the Act before the learned Magistrate. _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 14th December 2011 CVRK