The court judgement is ambiguous as hell. It doesn't mention either the website or the software that the plaintiff had tried to download. This is how they expl

The court judgement is ambiguous as hell. It doesn't mention either the website or the software that the plaintiff had tried to download. This is how they explained the situation - "The complainant has taken network service connection for his mobile since 5 years and subscribed for GPRS service. He tried to download an application from website using his phone GPRS service through torrent." Bittorrent through GPRS? Mind boggling.