2007 (12) TMI 9 - SC - Central Excise

Online pharmacy website dealing with banned narcotic drugs Sec. 79 of Technology Act will not grant immunity if accused has violated the provision of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in relation to prosecution of service providers.
2. Allegations against the appellant regarding involvement in dealing with banned psychotropic substances.
3. Application of Sections 24 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 to the appellant's case.
4. Examination of the appellant's companies' role as network service providers and their immunity from prosecution under Section 79 of the Technology Act.
5. Determination of bail eligibility based on evidence and allegations against the appellant.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
The contention was raised that service providers like the appellant's companies were protected from prosecution under Section 79 of the Technology Act. However, it was argued that this provision does not grant immunity from prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Issue 2: Allegations against the Appellant
The appellant was accused of arranging the supply of banned psychotropic substances online through his companies. The defense argued that the substances in question were not listed in Schedule-I of the Act and had low potential for misuse, thus falling outside the scope of Section 24.

Issue 3: Application of Sections 24 and 29 of the NDPS Act
The appellant was charged under Sections 24 and 29 of the NDPS Act, which deal with external dealings in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy, respectively. The prosecution argued that the appellant facilitated transactions involving psychotropic substances, making him liable under these sections.

Issue 4: Role of the Appellant's Companies as Network Service Providers
Investigation revealed that the appellant's companies were not innocent intermediaries but were running internet pharmacies dealing with prescription drugs. This finding negated their claim of being mere network service providers, thereby denying them immunity under Section 79 of the Technology Act.

Issue 5: Bail Eligibility
Based on the evidence and nature of the allegations against the appellant, the court found no merit in granting bail. The overwhelming inculpatory evidence indicated the appellant's involvement in activities violating the NDPS Act, making it difficult to establish reasonable grounds for bail.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the observations made were specific to the bail matter and would not influence the trial proceedings or decision. The judgment highlighted the appellant's active involvement in illegal activities, refuting claims of innocence and immunity under the Technology Act.