9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The petitioner challenged the order of the trial court issuing summons under Section 292/293/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The issues involved include the applicability of electronic records, compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, liability under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the lack of evidence establishing ownership or control over objectionable content on various websites. Applicability of Electronic Records: The petitioner argued that the Indian Penal Code does not equate electronic records with documents unless Section 65B of the Evidence Act is complied with. The petitioner contended that the material forming the basis of the impugned orders lacked certification under Section 65B, rendering them not admissible as documents. The absence of URLs on pages allegedly downloaded from Facebook.com was highlighted as a flaw in accepting such pages as evidence. Compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act: The petitioner emphasized the necessity of complying with Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act, which requires a certificate for electronic records. It was argued that the complainant failed to produce such a certificate, thereby lacking legal evidence before the trial court. Reference was made to a previous judgment emphasizing the importance of proper proof of electronic documents. Liability under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act: The petitioner relied on Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which exempts intermediaries from liability for third-party information hosted by them. It was asserted that the petitioner, not being an intermediary or service provider, was exempted under this provision as their role was limited to advertising and providing information free of cost. Lack of Evidence Establishing Ownership or Control: The petitioner argued that the complaint failed to provide any information establishing the petitioner's ownership or control over the websites mentioned. It was contended that publicly available information clearly showed that the petitioner did not have ownership, management, or control over the websites in question. The complainant was criticized for not producing material to even prima facie establish the petitioner's association with the objectionable content. Trial Court Proceedings: The prosecution raised concerns about objectionable content submitted in a sealed cover before the trial court, alleging it to be inflammatory and capable of inciting communal violence. The prosecution defended the magistrate's order, stating that objectionable materials were present in the records. The State was impleaded as respondent no. 2 based on oral submissions, and the trial court record was to be summoned for further review.
|
