ORDER:

The defacto complainant, who is the Forest Range Officer, in the Forest Office, Nandyal Town, has lodged a complaint alleging that he is used to nominate private persons as Data Entry Operators in the Forest Department under the (MGNREG) Scheme on contract basis. Accordingly, he appointed, the petitioner/accused-Bashyam Venkateshwarlu S/o. Venugopal, resident of Atmakur Town, as Data Entry Operator on 01.01.2016 to do the work under Akumalla Sekhar, Draftsman. On 12.02.2016, the said person stopped the work and went away. During his tenure, who is having knowledge of website of Forest Department, diverted the Government funds to his personal account bearing No.62285784623 of SBH and as well as other branches.

2. The police has investigated and laid charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, which is registered as Calendar Case No.164 of 2017, in the same lines stated supra, for the offences under Sections 420, 466 IPC and Section 66 C & D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The said C.C. was assailed in the present Criminal Petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

4. The contention of the petitioner in the present Criminal petition is that he is not in duty at the time of offence, as he has worked only for one month i.e. 01.01.2016 to 12.02.2016 and the said amounts cannot be disturbed without the signature and permission of the defacto complainant and the bank accounts of the petitioner shows that there is no amount credited or debted in his account and therefore he would pray to quash the C.C. No.164 of 2017.

5. In order to appreciate the facts applying the law and for better understanding, it is essential to extract relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and as well as Information Technology Act, 2000. Extract Sections, 66 and 43 of Information Technology Act, 2000.

66. Computer related offences:- If any person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act referred to in Section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five lakhs rupees or with both.

Explanation- For the purposes of this section-

(a) the word “dishonestly” shall have the meaning assigned to it in Section 24 of the Penal Code, 1860.

(b) The word “fraudulently” shall have the meaning assigned to it in Section 25 of the Penal Code, 1860”

The distinction between Section 43 and 66 is very succinct. All the acts which are covered within the purview of Section 43 if committed dishonestly and fraudulently are made punishable under Section 66 with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine. It is relevant to note that the word “dishonestly” and “fraudulently” is assigned the same meaning as in Section 24 and 25 of the Penal Code, 1860 respectively. The offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000 are compoundable and the offences which are punishable with imprisonment of three years and above are bailable and cognizable. Another important provision contained in the said enactment is Section 81 which reads thus:-

“81. Act to have overriding effect:- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.

Provided that nothing contained in this Act shall restrict any person from exercising any right conferred under the Copyright Act 1957 or the Patents Act 1970”

16. Reading of the said judgment, makes is clear that the Hon’ble Apex court had considered the effect of the overriding provisions contained in the Information Technology Act and has observed that all the provisions in the enactment are of significance particularly if the alleged offences pertains to electronic record. By observing that the Information Technology Act is a special enactment and it contain special provision, the Hon’ble Apex court has also considered the effect of Section 79 contained in the I