They are T A Tamboli, Director of M/s Acharya Computer Consultancy Services Private Limited, Rajdeep Srivastav, Sales Manager, Amol Srivastava, Sales Executive and Asif, an engineer. Four other engineers and a peon are reported to be absconding, according to a chargesheet filed by the police in the Kurla magistrate court.

The police had a tough time tracking down the culprits. Not being computer-literate, they had to put in extra effort to prove the crime and pin down the offenders. The police followed the case after a complaint was filed by V Raman, Proprieter of Pratibha DTP Centre, Chembur.

According to Raman, Acharya Computers, a firm claiming to be dealers for Hewlett Packard Ltd, strippedan HCL Infinity Computer of its original parts and fitted it with grey market components. Raman accused the firm of duping people by posing as an HCL dealer, accomplished by using the HCL monogram on visiting cards and letter heads, thus conning customers into believing it was an authorised dealer and service centre. In 1995, when a computer supplied by HCL Frontline Ltd -- a sister concern of HCL HP -- to Pratibha DTP Centre developed a snag within a month of its purchase, Rajdeep, an HCL employee, told Raman to hire the maintenance services of Acharya Pvt Ltd.

Their unsatisfactory performance led Raman to negotiate with them, resulting in the replacement of his existing system with an advanced one. But the new system failed to function. When two other computer systems also purchased from the same firm caused similar trouble, Raman finally approached HCL where he learnt that the firm's contract had been terminated in 1996.

Subsequently, HCL engineers inspected the computers and certified that thecomponents were sub-standard and did not belong to HCL. What has discouraged Raman is the fact that HCL has neither filed a case nor taken any legal action against Acharya Pvt Ltd for forging their documents and for selling, tampering and fitting their original products with grey market items. Raman feels it is the responsibility of the manufacturers to protect the interest of customers, in the light of this malpractice brought to their notice with sufficient proof, and especially when the company itself got the computers inspected.