ORDER

(This case has been heard through video conference)

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final report filed under Sec. 66, 66-C, 72 of Information Technology Act, 2000 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

2. It is the case of prosecution that on 17.12.2012 at about 19.09 hours, under the instructions of accused/A1, A2 and A3 dishonestly and fraudulently sent a false requisition to the Nodal Officer, Aircel Cellular Limited, Chennai by misusing the official email ID mudps.pon@nic.in of of Muthaliarpet police station to furnish CDR details of the mobile No.9423 26555 of VMC Sivakumar, the then Member of Legislative Assembly for the period from 17.08.2012 to 20.08.2012 for the purpose of investigation in Crime No.159 of 2012 under Sec.302 I.P.C., thereby collected the unnecessary unrelated and irrelevant information of CDR details of Mr.VMC Sivakumar. Therefore, it is the main contention of learned counsel appearing for petitioner that while A1 was serving as Sub-Inspector of Police, he has arrested some of the accused. On 19.08.2012, M.L.A. Mr.VMC Sivakumar influenced A1 to release the accused, however, the same was not accepted by A1. As a result, he was transferred malafidely. The same was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein he has specifically alleged, what has been conspired between him and MLA in the cell phone conversation. However, the 1st respondent has concluded the investigation and took a stand that no such conversation was taken place. However, he has established that there were conversations between then MLA and this petitioner/A1 in a personal number and call details also perused. Thereafter, a reply statement was filed by the respondents admitting the verbal conversation. Based on the above, transfer order is set aside. Now, the prosecution has been launched mainly on the ground that the petitioner, violating the standing order, obtained CDR details of the cell phone used by MLA, thereby committed offence under Sec. 66, 66-C, 72 of Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent would submit that there is a standing order issued by the Government, which would clearly contemplates the procedure for obtaining call details recording. It is his contention that only the District Superintendent of Police has been empowered to get call details on record. Violating the same, the petitioner/accused has obtained CDR details, thereby he has committed the offence. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition. However, the factum of transfer of A1, which was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal has not been disputed. Further, the allegations made in the petition and the counter allegations before the Central Administrative Tribunal was also not disputed. Now, in the above background, it should be seen whether the offence charged is made out against the accused or the entire complaint itself is the result of vindictive in nature and only to wreck vengeance, as against the order of quashment of transfer order of the petitioner/A1. The offence charged under Sec. 66, 66-C, 72 of Information Technology Act, 2000. Sec.66 of the Act reads as follows :-

“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 lakh rupees or with both.”

4. To attract the offence under Sec.66, the accused must have dishonestly or fraudulently do any act falling within the ambit of Sec.43. It is not the case of prosecution that the accused has committed any of the instances as contemplated under Sec.43 of the Act except contending that the accused has used email id of the police station to get the CDR report. Sec.66-C deals with the punishment for identity theft. It is not the case of prosecution that the accused has committed offence using electronic signature, passwo