IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Sri Siva Rama Krishna Chennuboina @ Chennuboina Siva Rama Krishna S/o C.H.Brahmaiah - Appellant
Versus
Mr.Sasi Narkis Babu V. – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.1985 of 2023
Decided on : 28-07-2023
Information Technology Act, 2008 - Sections 66, 66(F), 84© – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 380 - Registration of crime - Dark web - Data theft - Petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of crime – Occurrence of massive data theft and auction on dark web has been a worrisome concern to all nations [Para 10]
Finding of the Court: Investigation is to be taken up on war footing and complete it in a time frame, so that illegality would not perpetuate - More than 2 years have passed by, matter is still at stage of investigation - Though in certain cases time to investigate on deeper issues would be necessary, but bearing that in mind as well, it shoul d be endeavour of prosecution to conclude investigation as expeditiously as possible and file their final report - Four months time, in opinion of Court, would be adequate - No interference is called for on projection of innocence of petitioner.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of crime in Crime No.12 of 2021 for offences punishable under Sections 66, 66(F), 84(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (‘the Act’ for short) and Section 380 of the IPC and pending before the 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru.
2. Facts adumbrated, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
The petitioner claims to be a qualified degree holder in the discipline of Bachelor of Technology with specialization in Aerospace Engineering from Manipal University. The petitioner was appointed as an intern in a project in the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru. The project was “Drag Reduction by heat transfer through convection” and it was in the Department of Aerospace Engineering at the Indian Institute of Science. While so working as an intern, the petitioner claims to have undergone a thorough in-plant training and project work at HAL, ARDC in its design complex. The petitioner further works as a Research Assistant at Manipal Academy of Higher Education and has produced certain experience certificates for all the aforesaid works that he has performed. After working as an intern, owing to a notification issued by the National Aero Space Laboratory notifying the post of Senior Technical Officer Grade-III and finding himself eligible, the petitioner applies and he is selected for conduct of an interview. The interview was slated to be held on 23-03-2022. Four days prior to the date of interview, the petitioner comes to be apprehended on 19-03-2022 on a crime that had been registered long ago on 17-09-2021 for offences punishable as afore-quoted. On being taken into custody, the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court in the subject writ petition calling in question the very registration of crime against him in Crime No.12 of 2021.
3. Heard Sri Girish B.Baladare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that a crime comes to be registered on 17-09-2021 only for offence punishable under Section 66 of the Act. He would submit that there is gross delay in dragging the petitioner into the web of aforesaid crime as it is registered in the year 2021 and the respondents on the strength of the said registration, for the first time, sought remand of the petitioner for police custody on 19-03-2022. He would further contend that the petitioner has done nothing that would bring him into the web of crime and permitting further investigation against a bright student like the petitioner would become an abuse of the process of law. He would seek quashment of registration of the crime against him.
5. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Sri Shanthi Bhushan would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that when the petitioner was an intern in the Indian Institute of Science certain projects were sanctioned to be executed by the Aeronautical Development Agency, Ministry of Defence, Government of India. He was allowed to work as an intern in the preparation of code for the Light Combat Aircrafts used during war time. What the petitioner would do is get to know the entire source code and has published the same for sale on the Dark Web. Initially it was not known as to who was involved in the entire process. It took about 18 months for the Department to know that the petitioner is involved in all these activities. Therefore, he would contend that the petitioner has compromised the security of the nation. Investigation is still on, as to the involvement of any other person in such horrendous acts. He would seek dismissal of the petition. For
Grant of Bail - Overstaying in India after the expiry of Visa - Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is not extraordinary in the sentence that it should be invoked only in exceptional or rare cases.
High Court should be extremely cautious about interfering with the investigation and should not stall the investigation unless it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that FIR does not disclose an....
The absence of a lawful order from a public servant invalidates the FIR for disobedience, and significant delay in lodging the complaint undermines its credibility.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.