Bangalore District Court
(Rep. By Sr.App) vs As Required Under Sec.207 Of Cr.P.C on 9 April, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE I st ADDL.CMM:
BENGALURU
Dated this the 9 th day of April 2021.
Present: Shri Bhat Manjunath Narayan,
B.Com., LL.B.
Ist Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
C.C.No.22399/2018
State by Madivala Police Station
Bengaluru. ....Complainant
(Rep. by Sr.APP)
Vs
Nagaraja Reddy V.
S/o Narayan Reddy,
aed 32 years,
R/o No.148, 2B cross,
P.R.Layout, Naina's Bakery,
Marthhalli, Bengaluru. .....Accused
(Rep. by M.S.Jayakar Rao, Advocate)
1. Sl. No. of the case : CC No.22399 of 2018
2. The date of commission of : 14.09.2015 to 04-02-2016
the ofence
3. Name of Complainant : Anand
4. Name of the accused : As stated above
C.C.No.22399/2018
2
5. The ofences complained or : U/s 406, 427 of IPC R/w
proved sec.65, 66, 66B, 66C of
I.T.Act
6. Plea of the accused and his : Pleaded not guilty
examination
7. Date of Commencement of : -----
evidence
8. Date of Closing of : -----
prosecution evidence
9. Opinion of Judge : Accused not guilty
10. Date of Judgment : 09-04-2021
(Bhat Manjunath Narayan)
Ist Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
C.C.No.22399/2018
3
JUDGMENT
That, Police Inspector, Madivala police has fled charge sheet against the accused alleging that he has committed an ofence punishable under Section 406, 427 of I.P.C R/w sec.65, 66B, 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act.
2. The brief facts and allegations made in the charge sheet are as under:
It is submitted in the charge sheet that in the year 2015 the accused joined as a Technical Consultant in Minjar Cloud Solution Private Ltd. It is alleged that on 04-02-2016 between 5-30 A.M. to 11- 30 A.M. the accused through his IP address 106.51.241.254 and 10.245.194.186 has logged into server of Minjar Cloud Solution Pvt. Ltd. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that after taking information, the accused has deleted / destroyed the information from the server in order to cause loss to his company.
C.C.No.22399/2018 4
3. C.W.1 Anand who is one of the Directors of the Minjara Cloud Solutions Pvt. Ltd., has fled frst information before Madivala PS on 12-02-2016 alleging that the accused has accessed server of company with IP No. 106.51.241.254 and 10.245.194.186 and logs in the server shows that he with an intention to cause damage to business reputation and brand name has deleted data from the server and as such has committed an ofence punishable under sec.406, 427 of I.P.C R/w sec.65, 66B, 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act.
4. As per frst information given by C.W.1 Anand, Madivala PS Cr.No.243/2016 is registered against the accused for the ofence punishable under sec.406, 427 of I.P.C R/w sec.65, 66B, 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act. The Investigating Ofcer has visited the company and prepared mahazar in the presence of C.W.2 Ramesh S/o Ramachandra, C.W.3 Ramesh S/o Nagu, C.W.4 C.C.No.22399/2018 5 Raghudas S/o Panikar and C.W.5 Vijayray Apathi S/o Somaraju. The Investigating Ofcer has seized the laptop used by the accused and also one mobile phone. The Investigating ofcer has collected logs of the server from the ofcials of Minjara Cloud Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The Investigating ofcers C.W.7 Shivakumar, C.W.8 Frances, C.W.9 Nagaraj and C.W.10 M.S.Bolethin have collected information regarding Public IP address bearing No.106.51.241.254 and private IP No.10.245.194.186 from the service provider. The Investigating ofcers have collected log information, appointing document and on the basis of statement given by witnesses have come to a conclusion that the accused has committed an ofence punishable under sec.406, 427 of I.P.C R/w sec.65, 66B, 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act. Accordingly charge sheet came to be fled against the accused.
C.C.No.22399/2018 6
5. After fling of charge sheet, cognizance for the ofence punishable under section 406, 427 of I.P.C. R/w sec.65, 66B, 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act is taken. The accused was arrested during crime stage and he was released on bail. Copy of the prosecution papers were supplied to the accused as required under sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
6. Charge for the ofence punishable under sec.406, 427 of I.P.C R/w sec.65, 66B, 66C of Information Technology Act is framed read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims trial by this court. As accused pleaded not guilty, to prove the allegations leveled against him, the prosecution is directed to adduce oral and documentary evidence. However, in-spite of repeated issuance of NBWs and proclamations, presence of C.W.1 to 6 was not secured at frst instance and this court has rejected the prayer of prosecution to issue summons to C.W.1 to 6 after C.C.No.22399/2018 7 issuance of proclamation. Thereafter summons were issued to Investigating ofcers C.W.7 to 10. In-spite of repeated issuance of summons to Investigating ofcers, they have not appeared before this court. As C.W.1 to 6 were dropped earlier and Investigating ofcers are not appearing before this court, this court has rejected the prayer of Sr.APP to issue summons to C.W.7 to 10 also.
7. As there is no incriminating material against the accused, statement of accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. The accused has not led oral or documentary evidence in support of his contention.
8. On the basis of charge sheet allegation, documents produced by the prosecution, the following points arose for my consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 04-02-2016 between 5-30 a.m. to 11-30 a.m. the accused from his C.C.No.22399/2018 8 IP address No.106.51.241.254 and 10.245.194.186 has accessed server at Minjar Cloud Solution Private Ltd., and taken information pertaining to fnancial activities of the company, clients of the company with an intention to damage the reputation and business of the company and thereby committed an ofence of criminal breach of trust punishable under sec.406 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 04-02-2016 between 5-30 a.m. to 11-30 11.30 a.m. the accused by using his IP address No.106.51.241.254 has accessed server of Minjar Cloud Solution Private Ltd., and deleted information pertaining to fnancial activities and customers of the company and caused loss to the company and thereby committed an ofence punishable under sec.427 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 04-02-2016 between 5-30 a.m. to 11-30 11.30 a.m. the accused by using his IP address No.106.51.241.254 has accessed server of the company and by using device has erased entire data & caused damage to computer system and thereby C.C.No.22399/2018 9 committed an ofence punishable under sec.65, 66B, 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act?
4. What order ?
8. Heard Counsel appearing for the accused and learned Sr.APP. and my fndings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 to 3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : As per fnal order, for
the following:
REASONS
Point No.1 to 3 : -
9. Point No.1 to 3 are taken for common discussion as they are arising out of same incident and in order to avoid repetition. However, separate fnding has been given to each point.
10. That, in this case prosecution is alleging that the accused being the employee of Minjar Cloud Solution Pvt. Ltd., has accessed server and taken information of fnancial activities and information of C.C.No.22399/2018 10 clients and thereafter deleted entire information from the server. This being the case, the prosecution alleges that the accused has committed an ofence punishable under sec.406, 427 of IPC R/w sec.65, 66, 66B, 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act.
11. In order to prove the allegations leveled against the accused, prosecution has failed to secure the presence of C.W.1 to 10 witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet. There is no oral evidence on behalf of prosecution. In-spite of issuance of repeated NBWs, proclamation, presence of witnesses including the Investigating ofcers are not secured.
So, in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the prosecution I have considered whether the documents points that the accused has committed an ofence or not.
12. The Investigating Ofcer during the course of investigation has collected documents pertaining to the appointment of accused Nagaraj Reddy as C.C.No.22399/2018 11 Technical Consultant. It is clear from the documents produced with respect of employment of Nagaraja V Reddy that on 14-09-2015 accused was appointed as Technical consultant DBA in Minjar Cloud Solutions Pvt. Ltd., The salary slips produced along with employment documents clearly shows that the accused was working as Technical Consultant DBA in Minjar Cloud Solution Pvt. Ltd., since 14-09-2015. The Investigating Ofcer has also collected information regarding IP address mentioned in the complaint i.e., 106.51.241.253. The service provider Atria Convergence Technologies Pvt. Ltd., has given details of IP address. As per information provided by Nodal Ofcer of service provider dated 09-06-2015 it is clear that IP address 106.51.241.253 is assigned to one Nagaraja V Reddy. i.e., accused. So, it is clear from the documents produced by the investigating Ofcer that the accused was working in Minjar Cloud Solution Pvt. Ltd., and IP address No.106.51.241.254 C.C.No.22399/2018 12 was belonging to the accused as per the information provided by the service provider.
13. The next aspect which have to be proved by the prosecution is whether the accused through IP address 106.51.241.254 has accessed the server of Minjar Cloud Solution Pvt. Ltd., and taken / committed theft of information of fnancial activities of company and information of customers. To prove this, the prosecution has to adduce oral as well as documentary evidence of experts who are competent to say that from a particular IP address, server is accessed by the accused with login credentials and what are the information downloaded by accused. In this connection prosecution has not examined any expert who have made analysis of server of Minjar Cloud Solution Pvt. Ltd. The server of Minjar Cloud Solution Pvt Ltd., was not examined the technical experts and no report is obtained regarding accessing the server by the accused on the day and the contents downloaded by accused by using his C.C.No.22399/2018 13 login credentials. Unless the prosecution shows accessing the server by accused using his credentials and what are the contents downloaded by him, what are the contents deleted by him in the server, this court cannot come to a conclusion that the accused has committed an ofence of criminal breach of trust or causing damage to the reputation as well as servers of the company. This being the case, the ofence punishable under sec.65, 66, 66B, 66C, 66D Information Technology Act also does not attracts. The ingredients of ofence charged against the accused are not proved by adducing expert evidence who have got expertise in the data base management to say that the accused has damaged the information in the server. Therefore, I am of the opinion that in the absence of oral as well documentary evidence, this court cannot come to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of ofence punishable under sec.406, 427 of IPC R/w sec.65, 66, 66B, 66C, 66D of Information C.C.No.22399/2018 14 technology Act beyond reasonable doubt. Non- examination of witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, by giving beneft of doubt to the accused, I answer point No.1 to 3 in the negative in favour of accused.
Point No.4: -
14. In view of discussion and conclusion arrived at point No.1 to 3, accused is entitled to be acquitted. Hence I proceed to pass following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused is acquitted for the ofence punishable under Section 406, 427 of IPC R/w sec.65, 66, 66B, 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act.
The bail and surety bond
of the accused stands
canceled.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, revised and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 9 th day of April 2021).
(Bhat Manjunath Narayan) Ist Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
C.C.No.22399/2018 15 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution :- NIL List of exhibits marked for prosecution :-NIL List of witnesses examined for defence:- NIL List of documents marked for defence:- NIL (Bhat Manjunath Narayan) Ist Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.