Case: Gagan Harsh Sharma &amp; Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra &amp; Another

In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the petition it would be necessary to refer to the basic facts involved in the matter. The petitioners before us are two brothers. The petitioner No.1 is an Electronic Engineer employed as Vice President-Strategy and Business Development of M/s.Bliss GVS Pharma Ltd., India, a Pharmaceuticals Company engaged in the business of manufacturing, distribution and marketing of pharmaceuticals products across the globe. The petitioner No.2 is a Graduate in Information Technology and a software developer undertaking activity of software development for use in the healthcare industry. The two petitioners are arraigned as accused in Crime No.0346 of 2017 registered with Shahupuri Police Station on 27.08.2017. The First Information Report alleges that they have indulged themselves in offences punishable under Sections 408, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also offences under Sections 43, 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The FIR is registered on a complaint filed by one Shadab Abdul Shaikh, an employee of M/s.Manorama Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur in the capacity as Human Resources Head. It is alleged in the said complaint that M/s.Manorama Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd., Kolhapur, is a company engaged in the activity of developing healthcare softwares for Hospital management and is involved in development and distribution of the said software. It is alleged that the company has engaged 171 employees. Every employee at the time of his recruitment is duty bound to submit an undertaking/bond to the company that he will not disclose any details of the work of the company, source code or any information about software to any other company while in service or after service in relation to the health care software development. The complainant who is entrusted with the supervision of the employees work is duty bound to ensure that there is no violation of the bond/undertaking given by the employees and it is alleged that while he was scrutinizing the profile of one Suraj Mahajan, it is revealed that he has developed his own software and also distributed the same. The complainant suspected theft of data and software of the company and checked the details of Suraj Mahajan and also informed the Director that Suraj Mahajan was involved in stealing software namely Cleave Track with the help of Gururaj Janardhan Nimbargi who is the Head of the company. On inquiry, it is revealed that the software was developed by the company and not by Suraj Mahajan in his personal capacity and the server access of the company was given to Suraj Mahajan as an employee of the company.2. On the basis of the said complaint the FIR was registered and Suraj Mahajan came to be arrested. Thereafter, one Anand Sanmani was also arraigned as accused No.2 and came to be arrested in relation to the said crime. During the course of the investigation, it is revealed that M/s.Manorama Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. had entered a deal with M/s.Bliss, in Kenya, ERP software for healthcare division operating in Kenya and it developed the said software. The demonstration in relation to the said software was given by various employees which included Anand Sanmani. The investigation further reveal that this Anand Sanmani was manipulated and he joined the petitioners who intended to sell the said software in the Continent of Africa. It is also revealed that the employees of M/s.Manorama Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd. were directed to use the knowledge bank, resourses and the source code of M/s.Manorama Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd., resultantly all necessary financial aid and the company data of the company was transferred to the petitioners and their new company namely RiteSource Pharma Solutions Pvt. Ltd.3. In the backdrop of these facts the petitioners have approached this Court through the present petition praying for the relief sought in the petition.

Reasoning: We are inclined to think so as it is a special provision for a specific purpose and the Act 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.In view of the aforesaid analysis and the authorities referred to hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court has fallen into error that though charge has not been made out under Section 67 of the IT Act, yet the appellant could be proceeded under Section 292 IPC.11. Reading of the said judgment, makes is clear that the Honble 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 Honble Apex Court has also considered the effect of Section 79 contained in the Information Technology Act which is enacted for a specific purpose and has observed that the mandate behind Section 81 of the Information Technology Act needs to be understood in its proper perspective. It referred to the earlier precedents on the point where a special statute is pitted against a General enactment and thereafter has concluded by making reference Section 79 and 81 that once the special provisions are accorded overriding effect to cover a criminal Act, the offender gets out of the net of the Indian Penal Code and in the case in hand of Section 292.The reliance placed by the learned counsel Shri.Gupte judgment in case of The State of MaharashtraAnr. V/s. Sayyad Hassan Sayyed SubhanOrs (Criminal Appeal No.1195 of 2018 of SCC delivered on 20-09-2018), in our view it is not applicable to the present case in light of the direct pronouncement of the Honble Apex Court in case of Sharat Babu Digumarti (Supra). In the case relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel the issue involved was whether an act or omission can constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code and at the same time under any other law and in the said case under the Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006.The aforesaid judgment of the Honble Apex Court is therefore clearly distinguishable on facts but even the said judgment of the Honble Apex Court reiterates the settled position of law that where an act or an omission constitutes for an offence under two enactments the offender may be punished under either or both enactment but was not liable to be punished twice for the same offence. It is always possible that the same set of facts can constitute offence under two different laws but a person cannot be punished twice for the said act which would constitute an offence.Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts involved in the case, perusal of the complaint would reveal that the allegations relate to the use of the data code by the employees of the complainant company by accessing the Code and stealing the said data by using the computer source code. The Act of accessing or securing access to computer/computer system or computer network or computer resources by any person without permission of the owner or any person who is in charge of the computer, computer system, computer network or downloading of any such data or information from computer in a similar manner falls within the purview of Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. When such Act is done dishonestly and fraudulently it would attract the punishment under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, such Act being held to be an offence. The ingredients of dishonesty and fraudulently are the same which are present if the person is charged with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence of Section 379 in terms of technology is also covered under Section 43. Further, as far as Section 408 is concerned which relates to criminal breach of trust, by a clerk or servant who is entrusted in such capacity with the property or with any dominion over property, would also fall within the purview of Section 43 would intents to cover any act of accessing a computer by a person without permission of the owner or a person in charge of computer and/or stealing of any data, computer data base or any information from such computer or a computer system including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium and if it is done with fraudulent and dishonest intention then it amounts to an offence. The ingredients of an offences under which are attracted by invoking and applying the Section 420, 408, 379 of the Indian Penal Code are covered by Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and prosecuting the petitioners under the both Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act would be a brazen violation of protection against double jeopardy.28. In such circumstances if the special enactment in form of the Information Technology Act contains a special mechanism to deal with the offences falling within the purview of Information Technology Act, then the invocation and application of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code being applicable to the same set of facts is totally uncalled for. Though the learned APP as well as Shri.Gupte has vehemently argued that the prosecution under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code can be continued and at the time of taking cognizance the Competent Court can determine the provisions of which enactments are attracted and it is too premature to exclude the investigation in the offences constituted under the Indian Penal Code, we are not ready to accept the said contention of the learned Senior Counsel, specifically in the light of the observations of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Sharat Babu Digumarti (Supra). We are of the specific opinion that it is not permissible to merely undergo the rigmarole of investigation although it is not open for the Investigating Officer to invoke and apply the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, in light of the specific provisions contained in the Information Technology Act, 2000 and leave it to the discretion of the Police Authorities to decide in which direction the investigation is to be proceeded. The Information Technology Act, 2000 being a special enactment, it requires an able investigation keeping in mind the purpose of the enactment and to nab the new venturing of crimes with the assistance of the Technology.