*1*

kps

wp.314.12.sxw

CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION CRIMINALWRITPETITIONNO.314of2012 ManojOswal, Age:34years, Address:149,BhawaniPeth, Pune411042. 1 Versus TheStateofMaharashtra. ThroughSr.P .I., CyberCrimeCell, CrimeBranch,Pune. SakalPapersPvt.Ltd., BudhwarPeth, Pune411002.

ig h
..RESPONDENTS CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI AND S.B.SHUKRE,JJ. Reservedon:04thJuly,2013. Pronouncedon:06thAugust,2013.
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

............. Mr.KushalMori/byMr.RavindraLokhande,forthePetitioner. Ms.NehaPrashanti/byALMTLegal,fortheRespondentNo.2.

om

Mrs.P .H.Kantharia,APP ,fortheRespondent/State. ............

Judgment(PerDharmadhikari,J): 1 RULE.

ba y

C ou
..PETITIONER

rt

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATBOMBAY

*2*

wp.314.12.sxw

2 forthwith. 3

TheRespondentswaiveservice.Byconsentofparties,heard

BythisWritPetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionof

India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the PetitionerisseekingquashingofCRNo.3212/2011registeredwiththe CyberCrimeCell,CrimeBranch,Puneallegingoffencespunishableunder Section500oftheIndianPenalCodeandSection66AoftheInformation TechnologyAct,2000. 4

ThecomplaintallegesthatonePratapraoGovindraoPawaris

Chairman of M/s Sakal Papers Private Limited. This Company is incorporatedandregisteredundertheIndianCompaniesAct,1956.Itis engagedinthebusinessofprintingandpublishingnewspapersinthe publications have wide circulation throughout India and abroad. One AbhijeetPratapraoPawarisDirectorontheBoardofDirectorsofthesaid Company.OneLeelataiParulekarisalsoaDirectorandsheisdaughterof thefounderofthesaidCompany,namely,lateDr.NanasahebParulekar. 5 Itisallegedthattherewasfunctionorganizedon20.09.2011 StatesofMaharashtraandGoa.TheCompanyhasalsoWebsite,therefore,

om

to celebrate 114th Birth Anniversary of Dr.Nanasaheb Parulekar. That programmewasorganizedatBalgandharvaRangmandir,Puneat06:00 PMintheevening.Thefunction wasattendedbyhighdignitariesand Mr.PratapraoPawarwasalsopersonallypresent.Whenthatprogramme wasgoingon,apersoni.e.thePetitioner,intendingtoobstructthesame andtocreatechaosandconfusion,enteredthehallalthoughhewasnot aninvitee.Hewasdistributingsomepamphlets.Hehadenteredthehall

ba y

ig h

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

*3*

wp.314.12.sxw

after pushing several persons. The pamphlets contain the defamatory speakingindefamatorylanguagetothosepresentintheaudience.One suchpamphletwasgiventotheemployeeofthesaidCompany,namely, DhananjayDivakar.ThesaidDhananjayDivakaralsosawthePetitionerin thehallandatthattime,theComplainantMr.MahendraPisal,General ManageroftheCompany,wasshownthispamphlet.Onreadingit,he foundthatitcontainsdefamatorystatementsandalsoreferstowebsites, callinguponthepeopleintheaudiencetoviewthesewebsites. 6 On accessing those websites, the Complainant noticed that namely, www.savelila.com and www.jeevraksha.org. The Petitioner was

they contained several defamatory statements and material against PratapraoPawarandwholepurposewastodefamehim.Thus,theseare althoughthesepersonshavenoconnectionwiththesaidCompanyorthe saidLeelataiParulekarorhersocialwork.Thestatementsweremadeto malignanddefamePratapraoPawar.Forallthesereasons,itwasalleged that they have committed the offences punishable under the aforementionedprovisions. 7 InthisWritPetition,thePetitionerhasallegedthatheisa the statements made by the Petitioner and some of his associates,

om

spiritedindividualworkingforthebettermentofanimalsandisalsothe founder of the Pune Unitof People for Animals.He isalsoan Animal WelfareOfficer(Hon)withtheAnimalWelfareBoardofIndia(forshort AWBI)undertheMinistryofEnvironmentandForests.Hehasalsobeen appointedasanAnimalWelfareOfficer(Hon)bytheBombayHighCourt Committee for monitoring of Animal Welfare Laws in the State of

ba y

ig h

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

materialagainstthesaidPratapraoPawar.ThePetitionerwasalsoseen

*4*

wp.314.12.sxw

Maharashtra. He also runs a helpline for animals that rescues around

ItisallegedthattheInformationTechnologyAct,2000was

deliberately used purely to convert a non cognizable offence into a cognizable one. The Petitioner believes that though there was no case againsthimundertheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,hewasframed underpressure/influenceofpoliticallywellconnectedpersontofirstly himfurtherifneeded.Itisallegedthatallthiswaswithanintentionto force the Petitioner to withdraw the criminal cases against the said PratapraoPawarandhismen.ItisstatedthataplainreadingoftheFirst InformationReportmakesitclearthatnocaseismadeoutagainstthe Petitioner.TheFirstInformationReportdoesnotsaythatthePetitioner messages nor that any content of the websites was obtained through illegitimatemeans.TheonlycomplaintbeingrepeatedisthathisSaheb wasdefamedbytheactionsofthePetitioner. was harassing anyone. He did not send any menacing or threatening getthePetitionerarrestedandtorturedinpolicecustodyandtoharass

om

appointedbytheAnimalWelfareBoardofIndiaaswellastheBombay High Court Committee for Animal Welfare. The Petitioner is extremely concernedandfrustratedoverthesituationofanimalsintheshelterby nameJeevraksha.ItisallegedthatClaudeLilaParulekar,theownerof theshelterthathasover200300animals,isnowcompletelyhelpless.She isphysicallydisabledandcannotevenliftherheadonherownandher two limbs are paralyzed and one limb is fractured. She is mentally inconsistentduetoseveredementiaandotherailmentsofthebrainand

ba y

ItisstatedthatthePetitionerisanAnimalWelfareOfficer

ig h

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

1200animalsayear.

*5*

wp.314.12.sxw

nervoussystem.ThesaidLilaParulekarhasnorelativesandtherefore,a thatthePetitionerisfightingagainstthisillegality. 10

It is alleged that the Petitioner is, therefore, facing

harassmentbyPoliceandantisocialelementssincelastoneandahalf yeartowithdrawfromtheissue.Thefalseandfrivolouscomplaintswere filedagainstthePetitionerwiththeAnimalWelfareBoardofIndiaandthe asanAnimalWelfareOfficer.Itisstatedthatafterfacingenquiryfrom Animal WelfareBoard of India, the Petitioner was foundtohave been framed and the socalled Complainants said that their signatures/ letterheadshavebeenforged.Asecondsetofcomplaintswasfiledinthe nameofLilaParulekarwiththeAWBIinthemonthofSeptemberandthe insounddisposingmind. 11 ItisallegedthattheComplainant,inthiscase,atanearlier AWBIafterperusalofmedicalrecords,foundthatLilaParulekarwasnot BombayHighCourtAnimalWelfareCommitteetogethimderecognized

om

occasion has used the similar modus operandi to force an opponent named Chandrashekhar Hari Joshi to withdraw all cases filed by him againstPratapraoPawarandhisCompany.Inthatparticularcase,merely onthegroundsthatMr.ChandrashekharHariJoshihadreimbursedhis creditcardexpensesfromLilaTrust,hewasinpolicecustodyfor7days andafterwhichhewithdrewallcasesintheCompanyLawBoard,District Court,HighCourtandresignedfromallTrustsandflewoutofIndiafor an indefinite period. Subsequently, the Police were unable to find any evidenceandthecasewasclosed.

ba y

ig h

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

politicallywellconnectedpersonistryingtograbherland.Itisclaimed

*6*

wp.314.12.sxw

12

ItisallegedthatthePetitionerhasbeenfightingfortherights

who is currently under house arrest and under illegal custody of PratapraoPawar.ThePetitionertriedtoraiseawarenessontheplightof animalsandLilaParulekarthroughawebsite www.jeevraksha.orgwhich wasmadetogetherbyagroupofLila'sfriendsandanimalloverscalled Jeevraksha Support Group. The Petitioner also spread the message throughleafletandemailsothatLilaandheranimalscangetjustice.Itis tocelebratetheBirthCentenaryofDr.NanasahebParulekar,fatherofLila Parulekar. The Petitioner explained people about condition of Lila and how she is being neglected and her property is being usurped. The Petitioner has annexed the copies of websites at AnnexureB. The Petitioner has also referred to the notice issued to him on behalf of AnnexureDtotheWritPetition. 13 Inparagraphs10and11ofthisWritPetition,thisiswhatis Prataprao Govind Pawar found it humiliating that peoplearebeingmadeawareofthepitiablecondition of Lila Parulekar who is the only daughter of Nanasaheb Parulekar under whose name he runs several trusts and institutions. He also found it difficulttoanswerbeforepublicastowhyisthislady in neglect and not being allowed to meet her own friendsandwellwishers.Theaccusedthereforeputto taskanentiremachinerytoavengethishumiliation andalsotoremovehimfromhiswayforgrabbing landownedbyLilaParulekarandJeevraksha. It is also notable that the Complainant Pratap GovindraoPawarandSakalPapersLimitedappears to have extreme domination over the Police PratapraoPawar.AcopyofnoticeisatAnnexureCandreplytheretoisat claimedthatthePetitioneralsopeacefullywenttothesaidfunctionheld

om

alleged:

ba y

10.

11.

ig h

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

ofanimalssincelast14yearsandalsoafriendofClaudeLilaParulekar,

*7*

wp.314.12.sxw

wasdeniedbailonunjustifiedgroundsandputunderarrest,whathas beenthenallegedisthatitisthePetitionerwhohasbeendefamedand publicly. 15

of the First Information Report would not disclose commission of any

om

cognizable offence. The Information Technology Act, 2000 has been deliberatelyreferredtopurelytoconvertanoncognizableoffenceintoa cognizable one. Though there was no case under the Information TechnologyAct,2000,thePetitionerhasbeenframedunderpressureor influenceofpoliticallywellconnectedpersons. 16 It is then stated that the website does not disclose any

menacingoroffensivematerial.Itiscontendedthatthewordmenace meansthreat,dangerandnuisance,butnothingofthatsortisemerging from contents of the website. In these circumstances, the First

ba y

Fortheabovereasons,whatisthenallegedisthataperusal

14

AfterallegingasaboveandcomplainingthatthePetitioner

ig h

Department.TheHon'bleHighCourtissuedordersfor propercareofanimalsatLilaParulekar'sshelteron 02.12.2011,however,theguardsofSakalPapersstill did not allow volunteers inside the bungalow. The Division Bench of Hon'ble Chief Justice and Justice R.S.Dalvi, perturbed by blatant misuse of muscle power,directedtheCommissionerofPolice,Puneto provide protection to activists. Despite the specific ordertotheCommissionerofPolice,PunethePolice arereluctanttoactandevennowanimalsarenot beingallowedtobecaredforasperordersoftheHigh Court.Thisamplyillustrateswhatkindofrespectthe ComplainanthaskindofcloutithasoverthePolice Department.

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

*8*

wp.314.12.sxw

InformationReportdeservestobequashed. 17 In support of this Writ Petition, Mr.Mor, learned counsel

appearingforthePetitioner,submitsthatthecomplaintdoesnotdisclose commission of any offence. The allegations in the First Information Reportarevague.Theessentialingredientsoftheoffenceshavenotbeen referredtoleavealonealleged.Thereisenormousdelayinregisteringthe First Information Report. The entire action is vitiated by malafides person.ThepersonconcernedisPratapraoPawar,ChairmanofM/sSakal PapersPrivateLimited.Heisapowerfulpersonandhasthusmanagedto get the First Information Report registered although a bare reading of sectionswhichhavebeeninvoked,wouldindicatethattheInformation Technology Act, 2000 could not have been invoked. There are no appearingonthewebsiteorleaflet,isdefamatoryorhascausednuisance, annoyance, etc.. Further, the word publication is not appearing in Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. That word is specifically to be found in Section 67 and therefore, whenever the Legislaturedesirestomakepublicationoractofpublishinganyoffensive or obscene material as an offence, it has specifically said so. In that behalf,ourattentionisinvitedtoSections66E,67,67Aand67Bofthe InformationTechnologyAct,2000.Forthesereasons,itissubmittedthat the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence punishable under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and therefore, the First InformationReportbequashedtothisextent. 18 Lastly, it was urged that the statement not of the person particularsregardingwhichstatementattributabletothePetitionerand because the Petitioner is stated to have defamed a highly influential

om

ba y

ig h

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

*9*

wp.314.12.sxw

allegedly defamed is recorded, but that of an employee of M/s Sakal allowed and the First Information Report to the extent prayed be quashed. 19

Ontheotherhand,thelearnedAPPsubmitsthatthe First

Information Report discloses commission of offences as alleged and therefore,theWritPetitionbedismissed.Herargumentsaresupportedby theComplainant'sAdvocateaswell. 20

Forproperlyappreciatingtherivalcontentions,areferenceto

theallegationsintheFirstInformationReportwouldbenecessary.The gistoftheseallegationshavebeenalreadyreferredbyus.Sufficeitto statethatthePetitionerisaccusedofenteringtheAuditoriumwherethe thePetitionerenteredthehallandwithaviewtodisruptthefunction,by pushing some guests, started distributing pamphlets containing defamatorystatements.Thetitleofthatpamphlethasbeenreproducedin thestatementoftheGeneralManagerMr.MahendraPisal.Thewebsite hasalsobeenreferredandtherefore,theallegationsarethatthecontents of this website defamed the said Prataprao Pawar and Sakal Papers PrivateLimited.Itisallegedthatthisisthesolemotiveofdistributingthe pamphletsandcontainingdefamatorystatements.Eventhecontentsof website affirmed this position. The said contents and of website www.jeevraksha.orghavebeensetoutatAnnexureBpage21andwhat onefindsisthattheyindicate,primafacie,astohowthereweredisputes betweenParulekarsandPawars.Ithasalsobeensetoutastohowthe PawarGroupfiledthecomplaint.Itisinthesecircumstancesthatone functionwasscheduledandon20.09.2011.Atthattime,itisallegedthat

om

ba y

ig h

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

Papers Private Limited. In these circumstances, this Writ Petition be

*10*

wp.314.12.sxw

findsthatthePetitionerwouldurgethatthisact,though,primafacie, Code,cannotbesaidtobe falling within andcoveredby the relevant provisionsoftheInformationTechnologyAct,2000. 21

Wehavebeentakenthroughthecontentsofotherwebsite

whichisentitledwww.savelila.com.Wehavealsobeentakenthroughthe annexuresofthisWritPetition. 22

The provisions which have been invoked, insofar as the

InformationTechnologyAct,2000isconcerned, areSections66A and 67whichreadasunder: 66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communicationservice,etc.: Any person who sends, by means of a computer resourceoracommunicationdevice (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacingcharacter;or (b) anyinformationwhichheknowstobefalse,butfor the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation,enmity,hatredorillwill,persistentlyby making use of such computer resource or a communicationdevice;or (c) anyelectronicmailorelectronicmailmessageforthe purposeofcausingannoyanceorinconvenienceorto deceiveortomisleadtheaddresseeorrecipientabout theoriginofsuchmessages, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term whichmayextendtothreeyearsandwithfine. Explanation:Forthepurposeofthissection,terms electronic mail and electronic mail message means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer

om

ba y

ig h

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

maycomewithinthepurviewofSections499and500oftheIndianPenal

*11*

wp.314.12.sxw

67.

Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene materialinelectronicform.: Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be publishedortransmittedintheelectronicform,any materialwhichislasciviousorappealstotheprurient interestorifitseffectissuchastotendtodeprave andcorruptpersonswhoarelikely,havingregardto all relevantcircumstances,to read,see or hear the mattercontainedorembodiedinit,shallbepunished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three yearsand with finewhich mayextend tofivelakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent convictionwithimprisonmentofeitherdescriptionfor atermwhichmayextendtofiveyearsandalsowith finewhichmayextendtotenlakhrupees.

23

Information Report does not disclose any offence. The Information

om

TechnologyAct,2000isaddedmerelytoregistertheFirstInformation Report because the allegations essentially are of defamation. The Petitionerisreservinghisrightstourgethatnooffencepunishableunder Sections499and500oftheIndianPenalCodeiscommitted.Thatright will be exercised by him at appropriate stage before the Trial Court. However,theInformationTechnologyAct,2000itselfandprovisionsin questioncouldnothavebeeninvokedparticularlybecausewebsiteisnot coveredwithinthesubjectprovision. 24 Inthisbehalf,aperusalofSection66Aandwhichhasbeen

ba y

The argument of the Petitioner's Advocate is that the First

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

system,computerresourceorcommunicationdevice including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmittedwiththemessage.

rt

*12*

wp.314.12.sxw

invoked in this case, would make it clear that same provides for serviceetc..Anypersonwhosendsbymeansofacomputerresourceora communicationdeviceandinthiscase,anyinformationwhichheknows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger,obstruction,insult,injury,etc.persistentlybymakinguseofsuch computer resource or a communication device, shall be punished. The explanationtothesamewouldmakeitclearthatwhatispunishablewith isanactofsending,bymeansofacomputerresourceoracommunication device,anyinformationwhichthepersonknowstobefalseandhesends suchinformationpersistentlybymakinguseofsuchcomputerresourceor communication device for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, messagehavebeendefinedtomeanamessageorinformationcreatedor transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resourceorcommunicationdeviceincludingattachmentsintext,images, audio,videoandanyotherelectronicrecord,whichmaybetransmitted withthemessage. 25 Itis,therefore,commonknowledgethatthesetermswould enmity,hatredorillwill.Thetermselectronicmailandelectronicmail imprisonmentforatermwhichmayextendtothreeyearsandwithfine,

om

nothavebeendefinedintheexplanation,hadtheintentofthelegislature beennottoincludewithinthepurviewofthisprovisionthesendingof anyinformationthroughwebsite.Inthisbehalf,thedefinitionoftheterm information in Section 2(1)(v) is to be read along with the terms communicationdevice,computer,computernetwork,computerresource, computersystemwhichdefinitionsaretobefoundintheverySection

ba y

ig h

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

punishment for sending offensive messages through communication

*13*

wp.314.12.sxw

2(1). It would be apparent that sending offensive messages through implicittherein.TheworddataasdefinedinSection2(1)(o)andother definitionsreferredtoabove,readthus: Section2(1): (ha). communicationdevicemeanscellphones,personal digital assistance or combination of both or any otherdeviceusedtocommunicate,sendortransmit anytext,video,audioorimage.

om

ba y

(j)

computer network means the interconnection of one or more computers or computer systems or communicationdevicethrough (i) theuseofsatellite,microwave,terrestrialline, wire,wirelessorothercommunicationmedia;and (ii) terminals or a complex consisting of two or more interconnected computers or communication device whether or not the interconnection is continuouslymaintained. computer resource means computer, computer system,computernetwork,data,computerdatabase orsoftware. computer system means a device or collection of devices,includinginputandoutputsupportdevices and excluding calculators which are not programmable and capable of being used in conjunction with external files which contain computerprogrammes,electronicinstructions,input

(k)

(l)

ig h

(i)

computermeansanyelectronic,magnetic,optical orotherhighspeeddataprocessingdeviceorsystem which performs logical, arithmetic and memory functionsbymanipulationsofelectronic,magneticor optical impulses, and includes all input, output, processing, storage, computer software or communication facilities which are connected or related to the computer in a computer system or computernetwork.

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

communication service would include computer or website and that is

*14*

wp.314.12.sxw

(o)

(v)

26

Aperusalofallthesedefinitionswouldindicatethathadthe

beenbyspecificprovision.Iftheintentisnottobringwithinthenetor purviewofpunishingorpenalprovision,anactofsending,bymeansofa computerresourceoracommunication device,thegrosslyoffensiveor menacing information or false information for the purpose of causing annoyance,inconvenience,danger,obstruction,insult,injury,etc.,then, theLegislaturewouldnothaveincludedclause(c)inSection66A. 27 However, the argument before us is that the explanation

om

belowSection66Aisapplicabletoclause(c)andnottheearlierclauses. However,thatargumentisfallaciousforthesimplereasonthatsending anyinformationoftheabovenature,bymeansofacomputerresourceor acommunicationdevice,ispertainingtodata,text,images,audio,video, etc. and therefore, relatable to Section 2(1)(v), whereas, any person

ba y

Legislatureintendedtoleaveoutorexcludewebsite,thatwouldhave

informationincludesdata,message,text,images, sound,voice,codes,computerprogrammes,software anddatabasesormicrofilmorcomputergenerated microfiche.

ig h

data means a representation of information, knowledge,facts,conceptsorinstructionswhichare beingpreparedorhavebeenpreparedinaformalised manner, and is intended to be processed, is being processedorhasbeenprocessedinacomputersystem or computer network, and may be in any form (including computer printouts magnetic or optical storage media, punched cards, punched tapes) or storedinternallyinthememoryofthecomputer.

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

dataandoutputdatathatperformslogic,arithmetic, data storage and retrieval, communication control andotherfunctions.

*15*

wp.314.12.sxw

sendinganyelectronicmailorelectronicmailmessage,bymeansofa andtherefore,whensuchanactofapersonisalsoincludedwithinthe messagewasrequiredtobeincorporatedandwasthus,incorporatedfor completeness.Thatdoesnotmeanthatsendinginformationbywebsite aloneisincluded.Ifanymailormessageinelectronicformhasnotbeen sentthroughacomputerresourceoracommunicationdevice,then,that provisionreferstobothcomputerresource,soalso,communicationdevice inasmuch as it is not that merely a computer resource and sending somethingoftheabovenaturebythatmeansaloneispunishable.Any communication device utilized for sending information of the above natureisbroughtinandhence,thereisnomeritinthesubmissionsofthe termcomputerandwhichhascommunicationfacilitiesandwhichare connected or related to a computer or computer system or computer networkandequallyinformationistransmittedandmailsormessagesare givennotonlythroughcomputers,butcommunicationdevicesaswell. Everything that is offensive or menacing or causing annoyance, inconvenience,danger,insult,injury,etc.isthus,prohibitedandsuchact ismadepunishable. 28 This aspect becomes very clear if one peruses Section 66 learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. There is definition of the is out of the purview of the penal provision. On the other hand, the

penal provision, then, the definition of the terms email and email

om

whichhasbeensubstitutedbytheInformationTechnology(Amendment) Act, 2008 (10 of 2009) w.e.f. 27.10.2009. That Section 66 reads as under: 66. Computerrelatedoffences: Ifanyperson,dishonestlyorfraudulently,doesany

ba y

ig h

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

computerresourceofacommunicationdevice,hasalsotobeincluded

*16*

wp.314.12.sxw

Explanation:Forthepurposesofthissection (a) theworddishonestlyshallhavethemeaning assignedtoitinsection24oftheIndianPenalCode (45of1860); (b) the word fraudulently shall have the meaning assignedtoitinsection25oftheIndian PenalCode(45of1860). 29

Therefore,ChapterXItermstheactscoveredineachofthe

provisionsthereinasoffencesandwhicharepunishable.Thesesections consistentenactmentofthewhole.TheobjectandpurposeoftheActas enunciatedinthePreambleisthustosafeguardandprotectthosemaking or abuse it have to be penalised and bearing in mind its tremendous potential.Theusersareofdifferentcategoriesandcomefromallstratain thesociety.Thus,thehonestuseistobeencouragedanddishonestone hastobediscouraged.Therefore,thisargumentmustalsofail. 30 Theotherargumentisequallyuntenableandthatis,thereis positiveuseoftheInformationTechnology.Thoseintendingtomisuseit

om

no question of sending any information by merely storing it in the website.Itissubmittedthatincorporatingsomematteraboutanyperson inwebsitedoesnotmeansendingit.Itremainsinthewebsite.Thisisnot publication or circulation and therefore, this act is not covered by the subject provision at all. A person is not sending anything by merely creatingawebsite.Theordinaryandplainmeaningofthistermbeliesthis contention.Itisdefinedtomeancomputingalocationconnectedtothe

ba y

have to be read harmoniously with other provisions so as to make a

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

actreferredtoinsection43,heshallbepunishable withimprisonmentforatermwhichmayextendto three years or with fine which may extend to five lakhrupeesorwithboth.

rt

*17*

wp.314.12.sxw

Internetthatmaintainsoneormorewebpages. 31 This contention is fallacious because the definition of the

termscomputersystem,computernetworkandcomputerresourcewould make it clear that the Legislature had in mind all such acts as are presentlyattributedtothePetitioner.Itisabundantlyclearthatweare dealing with are computer related offences. The computer network or website can be accessed by anybody. The website on which the Complainant.Thatsuchwebsitewascreatedincorporatinginformationis, primafacie,undisputed.Thatbycreatingitselfwouldnotmeansending it,istheargument. 32 information is stored was accessed in this case by the aggrieved

That argument is wholly misconceived. The ordinary

definedtomean(a)causetogoorbetakenordeliveredtoaparticular destination and (b) arrange for someone to attend. In these circumstanceswedonotseehowthisactofthePetitionerwillnotcome within the purview of the subject provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The argument is that whenever the Legislature intendedthatpublicationortransmissionofobscenematerialinelectronic formisanoffence,ithasincorporatedspecificprovisiontothateffectin the enactment. The language of Section 67 is, therefore, pressed into service.Inthepresentcase,sendingcannotbetermedaspublishingor transmitting. 33 Onceagainthisargumentfailstotakenoteofthefactthat

om

theareaandfieldcoveredbytwoprovisions,namely,Sections66Aand

ba y

meaningofsendisdepositinmailordeliverfortransmission.Itisalso

ig h

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

*18*

wp.314.12.sxw

67, is not the same. The act of sending offensive messages through Equally, the act of publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronicformisanoffencebyvirtueofSection67.Thatisdealingwith theobscenematerialandtheactofpublishingandtransmittingit,has been referred and included. Section 66A provides for punishment for sending offensive messages. The message, which is in the form of information,isofoffensiveandmenacingcharacterorfalseorcausing clausesofSection66Aandbyclause(c),electronicmailorelectronic mail message has been brought within the purview and for obvious reasons.Itisnotjustanoffensive,menacingorfalseinformationintended tocauseannoyance,inconvenience,obstruction,etc.whichisdealtwith, buttheresourceordeviceutilizedarealsospecificallyreferred.Inother informationandmessage,itwillnotbepropertomakeitpunishable.In other words, the Legislature intended that the information emanating from computer resource meaning thereby computer system, computer network,computer databaseorsoftware,mustbeincludedandthatis how it used the term computer resource. When the act of sending offensivemessageisemanatingfromcommunicationdevice,then,forthe sake of clarity and completeness, the Legislature referred to the communication device and thus, referred to Section 2(1)(ha) of the InformationTechnologyAct,2000.TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000 has brought in a legislation so as to provide legal recognition for transactions carried out by means of electronic data interchange and other means of electronic communication, commonly referred to as electronic commerce, which involve the use of alternatives to paper words, without identifying the resource or device used for sending annoyance,inconvenience,danger,obstruction,etc.iscoveredbyfirsttwo

om

ba y

ig h

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

communicationservices,etc.isapunishableoffenceunderSection66A.

*19*

wp.314.12.sxw

basedmethodsofcommunicationandstorageofinformation,tofacilitate to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the 1934andformattersconnectedtherewithorincidentalthereto. 34

Banker'sBooksEvidenceAct,1891andtheReserveBankofIndiaAct,

ThestatementofobjectsandreasonsoftheAmendmentAct

10 of 2009 clarifies that the Information Technology Act, 2000 was transactions, to provide legal recognition for ecommerce and e transactions,tofacilitateegovernance,topreventcomputerbasedcrimes and ensure security practices and procedures in the context of widest possible use of information technology worldwide. The statement of objectsandreasonsoftheAmendmentAct10of2009readsasunder: AmendmentAct10of2009. Statementofobjectsandreasons: 1. TheInformationTechnology Act wasenacted in the year2000withaviewtogiveafilliptothegrowthof electronic based transactions, to provide legal recognition for ecommerce and etransactions, to facilitate egovernance, to prevent computer based crimesandensuresecuritypracticesandproceduresin the context of widest possible use of information technologyworldwide. 2. Withproliferationofinformationtechnologyenabled services such as egovernance, ecommerce and e transactions, protection of personal data and informationandimplementationofsecuritypractices and procedures relating to these applications of electronic communications have assumed greater importanceandtheyrequireharmonisationwiththe provisionsoftheInformationTechnologyAct.Further, protection of Critical Information Infrastructure is pivotal to national security, economy, public health andsafety,soithasbecomenecessarytodeclaresuch

om

ba y

ig h

enacted with a view to give a fillip to the growth of electronic based

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

electronicfilingofdocumentswiththeGovernmentagenciesandfurther

*20*

wp.314.12.sxw

3.

4.

5.

6.

infrastructureasaprotectedsystemsoastorestrict itsaccess. Arapidincreaseintheuseofcomputerandinternet hasgivenrisetonewformsofcrimeslikepublishing sexually explicit materials in electronic form, video voyeurismandbreachofconfidentialityandleakage of data by intermediary, ecommerce frauds like personation commonly known as Phishing, identity theftandoffensivemessagesthroughcommunication services. So, penal provisions are required to be included in the Information Technology Act, the IndianPenalCode,theIndianEvidenceActandthe CodeofCriminalProceduretopreventsuchcrimes. The United Nations Commission on International TradeLaw(UNCITRAL)intheyear2001adoptedthe Model Law on Electronic Signatures. The General Assembly of the United Nations by its resolution No.56/80,dated12th December,2001,recommended thatallStatesaccordfavourableconsiderationtothe said Model Law on Electronic Signatures. Since the digitalsignaturesarelinkedtoaspecifictechnology under the existing provisions of the Information TechnologyAct,ithasbecomenecessarytoprovidefor alternate technology of electronic signatures for bringingharmonisationwiththesaidModelLaw. The service providers may be authorised by the CentralGovernmentortheStateGovernmenttoset up,maintainandupgradethecomputerisedfacilities and also collect, retain and appropriate service charges for providing such services at such scale as may be specified by the Central Government or the StateGovernment. TheBillseekstoachievetheaboveobjects.

om

35

access to others does not mean sending any information, would be incorrectandnotintunewiththelegislativemandate.In Encyclopaedia ofInformationTechnologyLaw,Email,theInternetandtheLaw,Essential KnowledgeforSaferSurfing,TimKevanandPaulMcGrath,UniversalLaw

ba y

Therefore,tourgethatcreationofwebsitebyfacilitatingits

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

*21*

wp.314.12.sxw

Publishing Company, Second Indian Reprint 2010 , with reference to Kingdom, the authors point out the mischief that is imminent and by ingeniousdefences.TheAuthorsobservedthus: Fromtheaboveitisreadilyappreciablethate mailandtheinternetwillcomplicatemattersinthis area.Themostnotoriouscaseatpresentinthisareais GodfreyvDemonInternetLtd.[1999]4ALLER342. There,thedefendantwasaninternetserviceprovider (ISP)whoofferedaUsenetfacilityenablingpersonsto publishmaterialtoreadersacrosstheglobe.Persons wouldsubmittheirwork(postings)tothelocalservice provider who would then disseminate them via the internet. The defendant's Usegroup facility kept the articles for two weeks. On 13th January 1997 an articlewaspostedwhichwaspurportedlywrittenby theclaimant.Itwasaforgeryanddefamatoryofthe claimant.On17thJanuarytheclaimantinformedthe defendantoftheforgeryandaskedthatthematterbe removed.Thedefendantdidnotremovetheentryuntil theexpiryofthetwoweeksperiod(i.e.27 thJanuary). Theclaimantbroughtproceedingsallegingdefamation fortheperiodbetween17thJanuaryand27thJanuary. Thedefendantsargued,interalia,thattheywerenot thecommonlawpublishers. Morland J. held that the Defendants were indeedcommonlawpublishers: In my judgment the defendant, whenever it transmitsandwheneverthereistransmittedfromthe storage of its news server a defamatory posting, publishthatpostingtoanysubscribertoitsISPwho accessesthenewsgroupcontainingthatposting.Thus everytimeoneofthedefendant'scustomersaccesses soc.culture.thaiandseesthatpostingdefamatoryof theplaintiffthereisapublicationtothatcustomer (at348ef). The defendant had submitted that they were merely the owner of an electronic device through whichpostingsweretransmitted.However,MorlandJ.

om

ba y

ig h

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

decided cases by the Courts in United States of America and United

*22*

wp.314.12.sxw

writerswhohavecontributedtheirarticlesonthispoint.Acomparison betweenSections66Aand67is,therefore,outofplace. 36 Equally, other argument that the term inconvenience

om

appearinginSection66A(b)willenablepartiesliketheComplainantin thiscase,toinvolvethePetitionerandotherslikehiminfalsecriminal case, cannot be accepted. It is stated that any information which is inconvenient,doesnotmeanitisoffensiveormenacingincharacter.That may be informing public or anybody about a person or making any remarkorrecordinganyopinionabouthisconductandcharacter.Itis boundtocausehiminconvenienceandbythatactalonetheoffenceisnot committed.Someinformationwhichmaybeinconvenient,butthatdoes notinvitethepenalty.

ba y

ThisapprehensionhasalsobeenexpressedbysomeIndian

The American authorities were reviewed in somedepthbutthenswiftlydealtwithbystatingthat theAmericanlawandEnglishlawweredifferentin approach and therefore the cases were of limited persuasiveness. This case acknowledges that the internet,andinformationonit,isnotmerelyprovided bymechanical processes.TheISPsaretobeseenas living operations with control, and ultimately responsibility,overthematerialthattheyprovide. (seepage64and65)

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rejectedsuchasubmissionpointingtothefactthatthe defendant stored postings within its computers and could be accessed on that newsgroup. Further, the defendant had sufficient control to obliterate the postingswhenitfeltsonecessary.Thedecisionisof fundamental importance to ISPs. It also shows the wideconstructionbeingappliedtopublicationinthe internetfield..

rt

*23*

wp.314.12.sxw

thiscase,whattheLegislaturehastermedasanoffenceandwhichinvites asinthiscasewhichapersonknowstobefalse,butitcalculatedtocause

punishmentissendinganyinformationbymeansofacomputerresource annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, etc. persistentlybymakinguseofacomputerresourceoracommunication device.Therefore,theactisanoffenceonlybecausefalseinformationis Persistently sending such false information is an offence. The word inconvenience, therefore, must not be read in isolation or out of context. The word takes its colour from other words in clause (b) of Section66A.Thedictionarymeaningoftheterminconvenienceisa discomfort;somethingthatgivestrouble.InAdvancedLawLexiconby totheterminconvenience.Inordinaryandcommonparlance,theword inconvenience as defined in New Concise Oxford English Dictionary, IndianEdition,meansthestateorfactofbeingslightlytroublesomeor difficult.Italsomeanscausingtrouble,difficultiesordiscomfort. 38 Iftheinformationwhichthepersonsendingknowstobefalse P .RamanathaAiyar,3rdEditionReprint2007,thisisthemeaningascribed beingsentandforthepurposeofcausingannoyance,inconvenience,etc..

om

is sent persistently for causing annoyance, then, it is bound to be inconvenientinthesenseitcausesdiscomfiture.Itistocreatetroubleand makethingsdifficultforhim.Itisinthisbackdropthatthewordisused andsalutaryprinciples of interpretation of statute that no wordor no phrasebereadinisolation,butmustbereadinthecontextandconsistent withtheintendmentofthelegislature,willgoverntheinterpretationhere. Therefore,merelybecausethelegislaturehadtoincorporatesomeword

ba y

ig h

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

37

Thisargumentisrequiredtobestatedonlytoberejected.In

*24*

wp.314.12.sxw

ortermthatitdidnotadditinthiscase.Thewordinconveniencewas theinformationtechnology.Suchabuseofinformationtechnologyhasto bepreventedatallcosts.Itisinthatbackdropthatthelegislaturehas made a comprehensive provision and we do not find that there is anything which interferes with the right of a person to communicate throughthemeansofthistechnology.Itisintendedtofurthertheright andparticularlythefundamentalfreedomofspeechandexpression.The restrictions. That freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions and anythingthatisindecentorcontemptuousordefamatorycannotbesaid tobecoveredinthisrightorfreedom,istoowellsettledtorequireany referencetoeithertheIndianConstitutionoranycaselaw.Itissettled principlethatjustaseverycitizenisguaranteedfreedomofspeechand isregardedasaproperty.Hence,nobodycansousehisfreedomofspeech andexpressionastoinjureanother'sreputation.Inthecontextofrightto seekinformationorrighttopublishorcirculatetheviewsinperiodicals, magazines,journalsorthroughelectronicmedia,whathasbeenheldis thatthisfreedommust,however,beexercisedwithcircumspectionand care must be taken not to trench on the rights of other citizensor to jeopardise publicinterest.(See Life Insurance Corporation ofIndiav/s ManubhaiD.Shah(1992)3 SCC637).In thiscontext,whathasbeen heldbytheHonourableSupremeCourtinthecaseofSecretary,Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v/s Cricket AssociationofBengal,reportedin AIR1995SC1236andafterasurvey ofalldecisionsinthefield,isextremelyrelevantandthatreadsthus: 52. Article19(1)(a)declaresthatallcitizensshallhave therightoffreedomofspeechandexpression.Clause expression,everycitizenalsohasarighttoprotecthisreputation,which freedomofspeechandexpressionisnotabsolute,butsubjecttosome

om

ba y

ig h

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

usedsothateverythingwhichisfalseandsentpersistentlywillbeabusing

*25*

wp.314.12.sxw

om

ba y

(2) of Article 19, at the same time, provides that nothinginsubclause(1)ofclause(1)shallaffectthe operationof anyexistinglaworpreventtheState frommaking any law,insofar assuch law imposes reasonablerestrictions onthe exerciseoftheright conferredbythesaidsubclauseintheinterestsofthe sovereigntyandintegrityofIndia,thesecurityofthe State, friendly relations with the foreign States, publicorder,decencyormoralityorinrelationto contempt of court, defamation or incitement of an offence. The grounds upon which reasonable restrictionscanbeplaceduponthefreedomofspeech andexpressionaredesignedfirstlytoensurethatthe saidrightisnotexercised insuchamannerasto threatenthe sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with the foreign States, public order, decency or morality. Similarly,thesaidrightcannotbesoexercisedasto amount to contempt of court, defamation or incitementofanoffence. Existing laws providing such restrictionsaresavedandtheStateisfreeto makelawsinfutureimposingsuch restrictions. Thegroundsaforesaidareconceivedintheinterest of ensuring andmaintainingconditions inwhich thesaidright can meaningfullyandpeacefullybe exercisedbythecitizensofthiscountry. Thefreedomofspeechandexpressionisarightgiven toeverycitizenofthiscountryandnotmerelytoa few.Noonecanexercisehisrightofspeechinsucha mannerastoviolateanotherman'srightofspeech. Oneman'srighttospeakendswheretheotherman's righttospeak begins.Indeed,itmaybethedutyof theStatetoensurethatthisrightisavailabletoallin equalmeasureandthatitisnothijackedbyafew to the detriment of the rest. This obligation flows fromthepreambletoourConstitution,whichseeks to secure to all its citizens liberty of thought, expression,beliefandworship.Statebeingaproduct oftheConstitutionisasmuchcommittedto thisgoal asanycitizenofthiscountry.Indeed,thisobligation alsoflowsfromtheinjunctioninArticle14that"the

53.

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

*26*

wp.314.12.sxw

Stateshallnotdenytoanypersonequalitybeforethe law"andthedirectioninArticle38(2)totheeffect: "the State, shall, in particular endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities,notonlyamongstindividualsbutalso amongst groups of people......... Under our Constitutionalscheme,theStateisnotmerelyunder an obligation to respect the fundamental rights guaranteedbyPartIIIbutunderanequalobligation to ensure conditionsin which those rights can be meaningfully and effectively enjoyed by one and all.

39

Intheabovecircumstances,wedonotfindthatthepresent

and therefore, he is sought to be proceeded against. It is only a false informationwhichcausesinconvenienceandifitissentpersistentlyand questionwouldavoidanypersonsendingthemessagesbeinghauledup andpunishedunnecessarilyasapprehendedbythePetitioner.Ultimately, whether any offence within the meaning of this section has been committedornotwilldependuponthefactsandcircumstancesineach case. Whether the allegations in the complaint are proved beyond reasonabledoubtwilldependupontheevidenceledbyparties.Itisopen fortheTrialCourttoarriveatanindependentconclusionineachcaseas to whether the charge is proved by satisfying itself that the essential ingredientsofthesectionareestablishedornot. 40 Asaresultoftheabovediscussionandwhenwefindthat nototherwise.Thatistheoffence.Suchconstructionoftheprovisionin

om

there is no material which would vitiate the registration of the First Information Report in this case nor can it be said to be lacking in

ba y

actofthePetitionerastermedbyhimismerelycausinginconvenience

ig h

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

*27*

wp.314.12.sxw

particulars or vague, then, our discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be invoked by the Petitioner. The Petitionercannotrequestustointerfereinoursuchjurisdictionmerely becauseinhisopiniontheFirstInformationReportisdelayed.Thatisa pleawhichthePetitionercanraiseatappropriatestageandduringthe trial.Therefore,suchgeneralandvaguepleaneednotdetainus. 41 Inthisbehalfwewouldfailinourdutyifwedonotinvitethe

Courtinthecaseof StateofKarnatakaandanotherv/sDr.PraveenBhai Thogadia,reportedin AIR2004SC2081.TheSupremeCourtobserved asunder: 7. ...Noperson,however,bighemayassumeorclaim tobe,shouldbeallowedirrespectiveofthepositionhe mayassumeorclaimtoholdinpubliclifetoeither actinamannerormakespeecheswithwoulddestroy secularism recognised by the Constitution of India, 1950..... ....Thevaluableandcherishedrightoffreedomof expression and speech may at times have to be subjected to reasonable subordination of social interests, needs and necessities to preserve the very choreofdemocraticlifepreservationofpublicorder andruleoflaw.Atsomesuchgravesituationatleast the decision as to the need and necessity to take prohibitory actionsmustbelefttothediscretionof thoseentrustedwiththedutyofmaintaininglawand order,andinterpositionofCourtsunlessaconcrete caseofabuseorexerciseofsuchsweepingpowersfor extraneousconsiderationsbytheauthorityconcerned orthatsuchauthoritywasshowntoactatthebehest of those in power, and interference as a matter of course and as though adjudicating an appeal, will defeattheverypurposeoflegislationandlegislative intent.... ....Welfareofthepeopleistheultimategoalofall

om

ba y

8.

10.

ig h

attentionofallconcernedtothejudgmentoftheHonourableSupreme

C ou

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt

underArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndiar/wSection482oftheCode

*28*

wp.314.12.sxw

42 discharged. 43

Inviewoftheabovediscussion,theWritPetitionfails.Ruleis Atthisstage,arequestismadetocontinuetheadinterim

order dated 13.03.2012 for a period of eight weeks to enable the Petitionertochallengethisjudgmentin ahighercourt.Thisrequestis opposedbytheComplainant'sAdvocate.Havingheardthecounselonthis point,whatwefindisthatthepetitionisdismissedbyusafterholding thattheFirstInformationReportdisclosesprimafaciecommissionofa cognizable offence. Further, what we find is that the arguments were restrictedtointerpretationofSection66AoftheInformationTechnology Act, 2000. The First Information Report alleges commission of offence punishableunderSection500oftheIndianPenalCodeaswell.Inthese circumstances the request as made cannot be granted. This request is refused. (S.B.Shukre,J.) (S.C.Dharmadhikari,J.)

om

ba y

ig h

laws,andStateactionandabovealltheConstitution. Theyhaveonecommonobject,thatistopromotewell beingandlargerinterestofthesocietyasawholeand not of any individual or particular groups carrying anybrandnames.Itisinconceivablethattherecanbe social well being without communal harmony, love for each other and hatred for none. The chore of religionbaseduponspiritualvalues,whichtheVedas, Upanishad and Puranas were said to reveal to mankindseemtobeLoveothers,serveothers,help ever, hurt never and Sarvae Jana Sukhino Bhavantoo. Oneupship in the name of religion, whichever it be or at whomsoever's instance it be, would render constitutional designs countermanded and chaos, claiming its heavy toll on society and humanity as a whole, may be the inevitable evil consequences,whereof.....

C ou
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::

rt