Karachi court drops CyberCrime charges against executives of a private software company known as Digitonics Labs, holding that the prosecution could not proceed the case due to lack of forensic evidence and the absence of witnesses to bolster the allegations.
The order was issued by Sessions Judge Abdul Naeem Memon on April 18, 2023, who approved a supplementary charge sheet submitted by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) recommending closure of the case under “C-class” due to lack of prosecutable material in FIR No. 03/2021.
The case involved 16 individuals associated with Digitonics Labs Pvt Ltd, including company owner Junaid Mansoor and CEO Muhammad Burhan Mirza, who were accused of running alleged online fraud operations involving impersonation, phishing, and trademark-related scams targeting international clients.
According to the prosecution, the accused were allegedly operating multiple websites offering services such as logo design, web development, and trademark registration. It was further alleged that these platforms were used to impersonate foreign government officials in order to extract exuberant payments.
Initial claims by FIA officials suggested recovery of sensitive data, including alleged credit card information, forged documents, and communication logs. However, subsequent forensic analysis failed to substantiate these allegations to a prosecutable standard. In its final submission, the FIA itself recommended cancellation of the FIR under “C-class,” stating that forensic findings did not support charges of fraud, money laundering, or cybercrime. The prosecution also endorsed the recommendation during proceedings.
A key observation recorded in the judgment was the absence of complainants or aggrieved parties. The court noted that no individuals, companies, or foreign trademark authorities had come forward to support the allegations, significantly weakening the evidentiary foundation of the case. The court also highlighted procedural deficiencies in the investigation, noting that searches and seizures were conducted without warrants as required under Section 33 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA). The order further observed that no independent witnesses were associated with the raids, raising concerns over procedural transparency.
Counsel for the accused argued that Digitonics Labs was engaged in legitimate commercial activity in digital services and that the allegations were based on unverified claims. It was further contended that no complainant or victim had appeared to substantiate allegations of fraud or impersonation.
In its concluding findings, the court approved the FIA’s recommendation and disposed of the case. Bail bonds were cancelled and sureties discharged for all accused persons. The order clarified that the closure does not bar reopening of proceedings should credible and substantial evidence emerge in the future.
The judgment also referenced earlier observations of the Sindh High Court in similar matters, reinforcing the principle that individuals cannot be kept under prolonged legal uncertainty in the absence of prosecutable material.
The development comes amid broader debate over cybercrime enforcement practices in Pakistan’s IT sector. In a related policy discussion, an opinion piece published by The Nation highlighted growing concerns over reputational risks, investigative overreach, and the impact of prolonged allegations on tech firms operating in Pakistan.
The article noted that repeated allegations and publicised investigations, even in cases where evidence remains unproven or legally untested, can create long-term reputational consequences for digital companies and weaken investor confidence in the sector. The court ruling in the Digitonics case has now been cited in this broader context as an example of how evidentiary standards and procedural safeguards remain central to sustaining confidence in Pakistan’s emerging digital economy.
With the Karachi court’s decision, the proceedings in FIR No. 03/2021 have formally concluded at trial level with no subject to reopening as ordered by the Judge.
