Karnataka High Court
Ravishankar S vs State Of Karnataka on 29 June, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8185 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. RAVISHANKAR S
S/O SURYANARAYANA S
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT 97, 1ST B CROSS,
7TH A MAIN, II STAGE,
NIVEDITHA NAGAR,
MYSORE-570022
2. LOKANATHAN S
S/O SUNDER RAJAN M G
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.416, 1ST J MAIN,
4TH D CROSS, NGEF EAST LAYOUT,
KASTHURINAGAR,
BANGALORE-43
3. SATHYANARAYANA M R
S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO.437, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
CHANNAMMANAKERE ACHUKATTU
BSK III STAGE,
BANGALORE-86
4. SHAM SUNDAR P R
S/O P.S RAMACHANDRA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
2
R/AT NO.157/A, 11TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE,
MANJUNATH NAGAR,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-10
5. RAVISHANKARA V
S/O VISHWESHARAIAH G
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.927, SRIVASTHSA,
A BLOCK, 7TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
KANAKDASANAGARA,
DATTAGALLI, 3RD STAGE,
MYSORE-570 023
6. SUBRAMANYA B K
S/O KESHAVMURTHY B S
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.5, F-103
OLETY KALAYANNAGAR,
MOODALAPALYA,
NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-72
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.ASHOK HARNAHALLI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. YESH BABA.R.MISHRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE
NELAMANGALA,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-01
2. RIJESH RAMAN
COMPANY EXECUTIVE,
LUWA INDIA PVT LTD.,
3
NO.3P/5P, GANGADHARANAPALYA,
KASABA HOBLI,
OFF TUMKUR ROAD,
NELAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-72
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.M.N.NEHRU,ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CHARGE SHEET LAID BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN
CRIME NO.218/2017 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
406,420,379 AND 149 OF IPC AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.842/2018, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC
NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Charge sheet is filed alleging that the petitioners-accused during the course of their employment with the second respondent with an intention to cheat the company got registered the company in the name of M/s.Tech Sphere Engineering Pvt. Ltd., and after committing the theft of electronic 4 records belonging to the second respondent- complainant resigned from their job and used the said electronic records for manufacturing the transmitter, PCB components and other articles and sold the same in favour of third party to defraud the complainant.
2. Learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 379 and 149 of IPC and issued summons. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.
3. Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners' counsel submits that the allegation of theft of electronic records by the petitioners - accused and the said offences alleged against the petitioners-accused is punishable for the offence under Section 43 read with Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act'). 5 Hence, he submits that the charge sheet for the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code submitted against the petitioners is impermissible, since Section 81 of the Act specifically provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. In support he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharat Babu Digumarti Vs.Government (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2017)2 SCC 18.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the charge sheet material clearly discloses the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners-accused and the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences and the same does not warrant any interference.
6
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State reiterates the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
6. The charge sheet is filed alleging that the petitioners have committed theft of electronic records belonging to the 2nd respondent - informant and by using the stolen electronic records have manufactured certain products with an intention to defraud the 2nd respondent - informant.
7. Section 43(j) of the Act specifies that a person accused of committing theft of electronic records shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the person so affected. Section 66 of the Act specifies that a person who dishonestly or fraudulently does any act referred to Section 43 of the Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term 7 which may extend three years or with fine or with both.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharat Babu Digumarti supra at paragaph-32 and 37 has held as follows:
"32. Section 81 of the IT Act also specifically provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. All provisions will have their play and significance, if the alleged offence pertains to offence of electronic record. It has to be borne in mind that IT Act is a special enactment. It has special provisions. Section 292 IPC makes offence sale of obscene books, etc. but once the offence has a nexus or connection with the electronic record the protection and effect of Section 79 cannot be ignored and negated. We are inclined to think so as it is a special provision for a specific purpose and the Act 8 has to be given effect to so as to make the protection effective and true to the legislative intent. This is the mandate behind Section 81 of the IT Act. The additional protection granted by the IT Act would apply.
37. The aforesaid passage clearly shows that if legislative intendment is discernible that a latter enactment shall prevail, the same is to be interpreted in accord with the said intention. We have already referred to the scheme of the IT Act and how obscenity pertaining to electronic record falls under the scheme of the Act. We have also referred to Sections 79 and 81 of the IT Act. Once the special provisions having the overriding effect do cover a criminal act and the offender, he gets out of the net of IPC and in this case, Section 292. It is apt to note here that electronic forms of transmission are covered by the IT Act, which is a special law. It is settled position in law that a special law shall prevail over the general and prior laws. When the Act in various provisions deals with 9 obscenity in electronic form, it covers the offence under Section 292 IPC."
9. The offence of commission of theft of electronic records is punishable under Section 43 read with Section 66 of the Act. The provisions of the Act have got over-riding effect of any other provision contained in any other law for the time being in force as specified under Section 81 of the Act. Hence, in view of Section 81 of the Act and also the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharat Babu Digumarti supra, the charge sheet filed for the offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code is impermissible since the Act is a special provision for a specific purpose and has to be given effect so as to make the protection effective and true to the legislative intent. Accordingly, I pass the following:
10
ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed.
ii The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.842/2018 pending on the file of Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District is hereby quashed. Consequently, the charge sheet filed against the petitioners-accused also stands quashed.
iii. Further the first respondent is directed to investigate from the stage of registration of FIR in Cr.
No.218/2017 in the light of the provisions contained in the Information Technology Act, 2000.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits and liberty is reserved with the petitioners-accused to raise all such contentions that are available in law in the event the charge sheet is filed for 11 the offence punishable under the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Sd/-
JUDGE RKA