Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Dalip Kumar - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another - Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 917 of 2021 with Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1701 of 2022
Decided On : 08-10-2024
(A) Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 43, 66, and 81 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 201, 420, 467, 468, 471 - Quashing of proceedings - The court held that the offences alleged fall under the IT Act, which is a complete code and has overriding effect over IPC provisions, thus quashing the proceedings initiated under IPC. (Paras 25, 60, 66)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - The court emphasized that the invocation of IPC provisions in cases covered by the IT Act constitutes an abuse of process of law. (Paras 62, 66)
Facts of the case:
The applicants challenged the proceedings initiated against them under IPC for offences also covered by the IT Act, arguing that the IT Act's provisions should prevail. (Paras 1, 25)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the IT Act provides a complete mechanism for addressing the alleged offences, thus quashing the IPC proceedings. (Paras 66, 68)
Issues: Whether the IPC provisions can be invoked when the alleged offences are covered by the IT Act. (Paras 25, 60)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the IT Act's provisions have an overriding effect and should be applied exclusively in cases involving electronic data and transactions. (Paras 60, 66)
Result: Proceedings quashed.
JUDGMENT :
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
1. In both the Applications preferred under Section C482 CrPC, the common question of law and facts are involved and therefore, both are being decided with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties by common judgment.
2. The principle question that arise in the present Applications is whether the invocation and application of the provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 can be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case when the offences committed by the applicant are also sought to be brought within the purview of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharat Babu Digumarti Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 2 SCC 18.
3. Both the proceedings which are being challenged in both the Applications are arising out of a First Information Report lodged by one Rashmi Pradhan the Nodal Officer, e-Rawanna (now deceased) on 14.07.2020 at P.S. Cyber Police Station, Dehradun registered as FIR No. 0019 of 2020 against some unknown persons for the offences punishable under Section 66 and 66C of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.
4. The allegation as alleged in the First Information Report is that for transportation of minerals in District Pauri, some unknown persons illegally generated I.D. M061022325 (GSTIN :05NAFE384QIZI) & e-Rawanna No. IM22325000982 in e-Rawanna portal of the department. It is also alleged that in respect of the said e-Rawanna, an information was sought from the Nodal Officer (e-Rawanna) and on examining I.D. M061022325 on e-Rawanna portal from 25.05.2020 to 15.06.2020, the Nodal Officer gave certain information to District Mining Officer, who in turn, informed that the District Mining Officer have not issued any mining lease in District Pauri Garhwal and on such information immediately the illegally generated I.D. M061022325 was suspended and when the sale record of the said I.D. for the period from 26.05.2020 to 27.05.2020 was examined, it was found that 25,000 ton minor minerals with royalty of Rs. 37,09,200/- @ Rs. 148.36 per ton were downloaded.
5. It is also alleged that from 05.03.2020 to 18.03.2020 in the name of one Vikram Singh Bisht, in whose name the said I.D. was generated, the total quantity of minor mineral of 20,000 ton and the royalty of Rs. 72,000/- were also illegally generated.
6. It is also alleged that the aforesaid I.D. was generated in March, 2020 and therefore once again to download the data, the same was checked in the e-portal from which it was reflected that the aforesaid I.D. was illegally generated.
7. It is further alleged that since in the data board and in suspended list the I.D. could not be found, therefore, the complainant immediately contacted to Technical Director, NIC telephonically and keeping in view of the security aspects, logs were changed immediately by Nodal Officer and District Mining Officer and thereafter a telephonic conversation took place with NIC Director Technical and sought backup for last three days from 16th to 27th May, 2020 and thereafter, again a telephonic conversation took place between the Nodal Officer and NIC Director Technical and Scientist Amit Kannaujia and thereafter, the NIC informed that due to technical reasons the data is not available from data center.
8. On the said FIR, the investigation was commenced and the I.O. sought certain information from the Director Technical NIC by issuing notice under Section 91 CrPC and Section 67C of I.T. Act on 09.09.2020 and the I.O. raised certain suspicions also upon Ankush Jain, who was posted as Scientist-C in NIC, Uttarakhand State Unit, Secretariat Dehradun on the basis that on 05.03.2020, 25.05.2020, 26.05.2020 and 27.05.2020, he has unauthorisedly accessed e-Rawanna portal.
9. During investigation, the I.O. also collected information about one purchaser, namely, Satish Kumar Lodhi, who was associated with Anul Pal and thereafter, on 21.11.2020, three persons, Dalip Kumar,
The Information Technology Act, 2000 has overriding effect over the Indian Penal Code, 1860, making it the exclusive legal framework for offences related to electronic data.
The Information Technology Act's provisions take precedence over the Indian Penal Code for computer-related offences, but do not encompass the element of deceit required for cheating under IPC.
Convictions confirmed; however, the appellate court modified sentences exceeding statutory limits in accordance with sentencing standards under the Information Technology Act and IPC.
Point of Law – Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court....
The Inspector of Police has jurisdiction to file a report under the Information Technology Act, and the determination of obscenity is reserved for the Trial Court.
The court emphasized that charges must be framed with precision, highlighting the absence of essential elements for IPC Section 354 and the need to consider dissemination under Section 354-C and IT A....
investigation of a non-cognizable offence by the police without the permission of the competent Magistrate is illegal, subsequent permission granted cannot cure the illegality as police officer has n....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
