The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between civil and criminal liability under the provisions of the Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2000, and the court's finding that the allegations in the FIR disclosed cognizable offences.

1. Heard Sri Uma Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.K. Verma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.

2. This Crl. Misc. Writ Petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned FIR dated 29.08.2018 registered as Case Crime No.2280 of 2018 under section 3/7 E.C. Act and 43 of the Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2000, Police Station Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad with further prayer that a direction be issued to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the said FIR.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply, U.P. wrote a letter on 21.08.2018 to Supply Officer to enquire and submit report about the misuse of Adhar authentication facilities in respect of Adhar Card holders by persons dealing with data-base, technical operators and by concerned fair price shop dealers. The Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply had also provided a shop list on excel sheet by which it was apparent that from one Adhar Card several transactions were made. In compliance with the said letter, a team of Supply Department inspected the shop list and submitted its report on 27.08.2015 alleging therein that the fair price shop owners of Transhindan area whose names had been mentioned in the FIR including the name of the present accused-applicant, had illegally transacted many ration cards from one adhar card number through E-Pos Machine and thereafter they misappropriated/black marketed the food grain (essential commodities) meant for distribution through Public Distribution System.

4. The FIR was lodged by Sri Sanjay Vishwakarma, Supply Inspector on 29.8.2018 against as may as 29 accused including the present accused-petitioner under section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act and section 43 of the Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2000 (here-in-after referred to as Act of 2000) making allegation therein that the petitioner had helped the technical operators who were involved in the process.

5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the FIR is totally silent as regard the manner in which the petitioner helped the technical assistant; no offence under section 3//7 of Essential Commodities Act is made out against the petitioner as he is neither a licencee nor permit holder. So far as the offence under 43 of the Act 2000 is concerned which has been reproduced in the petition, no offence is made out under the said provision and it does not provide for any penal provision rather the same provides only for compensation to be awarded following the procedure prescribed under section 46 of the Act. As per section 46 of the Act, an Adjudicating Authority is required to be appointed by the Government, which shall after being given reasonable opportunity of hearing, can impose penalty or pass an order of compensation. Further, it is submitted that under section 57 of the said Act, there is provision of appeal provided against the order passed by Adjudicating Authority under section 46(2) of the Act of 2000. Citing these provisions, it has been argued that section 43 of the Act of 2000 only provides for compensation and hence the same shall not be treated a penal provision. Further, he has submitted that under section 65 of the Act of 2000 punishment has been provided upto three years or fine of Rs.2,00,000/- or both, if one conceals, destroys or alters any computer source code used for computer, computer programme system, network but in the present case, there is no such allegation made against the petitioner. The petitioner is a peace loving person having no criminal antecedents and he does not know how to operate the computer as he is not a technical hand. Therefore, the prayer is made for quashing of the aforesaid FIR.

6. In order to understand the mode of committing offence and as to whether the same is punishable offence or not, it would be pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of the Information and T