9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1832 - HC - Indian LawsInterpretation of statute - applicability of provisions of the Indian Penal Code - offences also within the purview of the Information Technology Act, 2000 - whether the invocation and application of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code can be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case when the offences committed by the petitioners are also sought to be brought within the purview of the Information Technology Act, 2000? HELD THAT - Perusal of the complaint would reveal that the allegations relate to the use of the data code by the employees of the complainant company by accessing the Code and stealing the said data by using the computer source code. The Act of accessing or securing access to computer/computer system or computer network or computer resources by any person without permission of the owner or any person who is in charge of the computer, computer system, computer network or downloading of any such data or information from computer in a similar manner falls within the purview of Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. When such Act is done dishonestly and fraudulently it would attract the punishment under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, such Act being held to be an offence. The ingredients of dishonesty and fraudulently are the same which are present if the person is charged with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The ingredients of an offences under which are attracted by invoking and applying the Section 420, 408, 379 of the Indian Penal Code are covered by Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and prosecuting the petitioners under the both Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act would be a brazen violation of protection against double jeopardy. n such circumstances if the special enactment in form of the Information Technology Act contains a special mechanism to deal with the offences falling within the purview of Information Technology Act, then the invocation and application of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code being applicable to the same set of facts is totally uncalled for - it is not permissible to merely undergo the rigmarole of investigation although it is not open for the Investigating Officer to invoke and apply the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, in light of the specific provisions contained in the Information Technology Act, 2000 and leave it to the discretion of the Police Authorities to decide in which direction the investigation is to be proceeded. The Information Technology Act, 2000 being a special enactment, it requires an able investigation keeping in mind the purpose of the enactment and to nab the new venturing of crimes with the assistance of the Technology. The subject FIR insofar as the investigation into the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code is set aside - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Invocation and application of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) versus the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). 2. Applicability of the principle of double jeopardy. 3. Overriding effect of special laws over general laws. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Invocation and Application of IPC versus IT Act: The primary issue is whether the invocation and application of the IPC can be sustained when the offences committed fall under the purview of the IT Act. The petitioners are accused of offences under Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC and Sections 43, 65, and 66 of the IT Act. The petitioners argue that the IT Act, being a special law, should prevail over the general law (IPC), as per the judgment in Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government (NCT of Delhi). The court examined the scheme of the IT Act, which provides a complete mechanism for dealing with offences related to electronic data and computer systems. The court concluded that the acts alleged against the petitioners fall within the purview of Section 43 of the IT Act and, if done dishonestly or fraudulently, are punishable under Section 66. Therefore, invoking the IPC provisions is unwarranted. 2. Principle of Double Jeopardy: The court addressed the principle of double jeopardy, which prohibits punishing an offender twice for the same offence. The court noted that prosecuting the petitioners under both the IPC and the IT Act for the same set of facts would violate this principle. The court emphasized that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 408, 420, and 379 of the IPC are covered by Section 66 of the IT Act. Thus, continuing prosecution under both laws would be a brazen violation of the protection against double jeopardy. 3. Overriding Effect of Special Laws over General Laws: The court discussed the principle that a special law prevails over a general law. The IT Act, being a special enactment, contains specific provisions for dealing with offences related to electronic data and computer systems. Section 81 of the IT Act provides it with an overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force. The court cited several precedents where special laws were given precedence over general laws, reinforcing that the IT Act should govern the offences in question. The court concluded that the invocation of IPC provisions is uncalled for when the IT Act specifically addresses the alleged acts. Conclusion: The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the FIR insofar as it pertains to offences under the IPC. The court emphasized that the IT Act, being a special enactment, should govern the investigation and prosecution of the alleged offences, thereby excluding the application of the IPC. The court's decision is based on the principles of statutory interpretation, the overriding effect of special laws, and the protection against double jeopardy.
|
