Upload
saurav-datta
View
226
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
1/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*1* wp.314.12.sxwkps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.314 of 2012
Manoj Oswal,
Age : 34 years,Address : 149, Bhawani Peth,Pune-411042. ..PETITIONER
-Versus-
1 The State of Maharashtra.Through Sr.P.I.,Cyber Crime Cell,Crime Branch, Pune.
2 Sakal Papers Pvt.Ltd.,
Budhwar Peth,Pune-411002. ..RESPONDENTS
.............Mr.Kushal Mor i/by Mr.Ravindra Lokhande, for the Petitioner.
Ms.Neha Prashant i/by ALMT Legal, for the Respondent No.2.
Mrs.P.H.Kantharia, APP, for the Respondent/State.
............
CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARIANDS.B.SHUKRE, JJ.
Reserved on : 04th July, 2013.Pronounced on : 06th August, 2013.
Judgment (Per Dharmadhikari, J):
1 RULE.
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
2/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*2* wp.314.12.sxw2 The Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, heardforthwith.3 By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the
Petitioner is seeking quashing of CR No.3212/2011 registered with the
Cyber Crime Cell, Crime Branch, Pune alleging offences punishable under
Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66-A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000.
4 The complaint alleges that one Prataprao Govindrao Pawar is
Chairman of M/s Sakal Papers Private Limited. This Company is
incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is
engaged in the business of printing and publishing news papers in the
States of Maharashtra and Goa. The Company has also Website, therefore,
publications have wide circulation throughout India and abroad. One
Abhijeet Prataprao Pawar is Director on the Board of Directors of the said
Company. One Leelatai Parulekar is also a Director and she is daughter of
the founder of the said Company, namely, late Dr.Nanasaheb Parulekar.
5 It is alleged that there was function organized on 20.09.2011
to celebrate 114th Birth Anniversary of Dr.Nanasaheb Parulekar. That
programme was organized at Balgandharva Rangmandir, Pune at 06:00
PM in the evening. The function was attended by high dignitaries and
Mr.Prataprao Pawar was also personally present. When that programme
was going on, a person i.e. the Petitioner, intending to obstruct the same
and to create chaos and confusion, entered the hall although he was not
an invitee. He was distributing some pamphlets. He had entered the hall
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
3/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*3* wp.314.12.sxwafter pushing several persons. The pamphlets contain the defamatorymaterial against the said Prataprao Pawar. The Petitioner was also seenspeaking in defamatory language to those present in the audience. One
such pamphlet was given to the employee of the said Company, namely,
Dhananjay Divakar. The said Dhananjay Divakar also saw the Petitioner in
the hall and at that time, the Complainant Mr.Mahendra Pisal, General
Manager of the Company, was shown this pamphlet. On reading it, he
found that it contains defamatory statements and also refers to websites,
namely, www.savelila.com and www.jeevraksha.org. The Petitioner was
calling upon the people in the audience to view these websites.
6 On accessing those websites, the Complainant noticed that
they contained several defamatory statements and material against
Prataprao Pawar and whole purpose was to defame him. Thus, these are
the statements made by the Petitioner and some of his associates,
although these persons have no connection with the said Company or the
said Leelatai Parulekar or her social work. The statements were made to
malign and defame Prataprao Pawar. For all these reasons, it was alleged
that they have committed the offences punishable under the
aforementioned provisions.
7 In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has alleged that he is a
spirited individual working for the betterment of animals and is also the
founder of the Pune Unit of People for Animals. He is also an Animal
Welfare Officer (Hon) with the Animal Welfare Board of India (for short
AWBI) under the Ministry of Environment and Forests. He has also been
appointed as an Animal Welfare Officer (Hon) by the Bombay High Court
Committee for monitoring of Animal Welfare Laws in the State of
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
4/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*4* wp.314.12.sxwMaharashtra. He also runs a helpline for animals that rescues around1200 animals a year.8 It is alleged that the Information Technology Act, 2000 was
deliberately used purely to convert a non cognizable offence into a
cognizable one. The Petitioner believes that though there was no case
against him under the Information Technology Act, 2000, he was framed
under pressure/ influence of politically well connected person to firstly
get the Petitioner arrested and tortured in police custody and to harass
him further if needed. It is alleged that all this was with an intention to
force the Petitioner to withdraw the criminal cases against the said
Prataprao Pawar and his men. It is stated that a plain reading of the First
Information Report makes it clear that no case is made out against the
Petitioner. The First Information Report does not say that the Petitioner
was harassing anyone. He did not send any menacing or threatening
messages nor that any content of the websites was obtained through
illegitimate means. The only complaint being repeated is that his Saheb
was defamed by the actions of the Petitioner.
9 It is stated that the Petitioner is an Animal Welfare Officer
appointed by the Animal Welfare Board of India as well as the Bombay
High Court Committee for Animal Welfare. The Petitioner is extremely
concerned and frustrated over the situation of animals in the shelter by
name Jeevraksha. It is alleged that Claude Lila Parulekar, the owner of
the shelter that has over 200-300 animals, is now completely helpless. She
is physically disabled and cannot even lift her head on her own and her
two limbs are paralyzed and one limb is fractured. She is mentally
inconsistent due to severe dementia and other ailments of the brain and
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
5/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*5* wp.314.12.sxwnervous system. The said Lila Parulekar has no relatives and therefore, apolitically well connected person is trying to grab her land. It is claimedthat the Petitioner is fighting against this illegality.
10 It is alleged that the Petitioner is, therefore, facing
harassment by Police and anti-social elements since last one and a half
year to withdraw from the issue. The false and frivolous complaints were
filed against the Petitioner with the Animal Welfare Board of India and the
Bombay High Court Animal Welfare Committee to get him derecognized
as an Animal Welfare Officer. It is stated that after facing enquiry from
Animal Welfare Board of India, the Petitioner was found to have been
framed and the so-called Complainants said that their signatures/
letterheads have been forged. A second set of complaints was filed in the
name of Lila Parulekar with the AWBI in the month of September and the
AWBI after perusal of medical records, found that Lila Parulekar was not
in sound disposing mind.
11 It is alleged that the Complainant, in this case, at an earlier
occasion has used the similar modus operandi to force an opponent
named Chandrashekhar Hari Joshi to withdraw all cases filed by him
against Prataprao Pawar and his Company. In that particular case, merely
on the grounds that Mr.Chandrashekhar Hari Joshi had reimbursed his
credit card expenses from Lila Trust, he was in police custody for 7 days
and after which he withdrew all cases in the Company Law Board, District
Court, High Court and resigned from all Trusts and flew out of India for
an indefinite period. Subsequently, the Police were unable to find any
evidence and the case was closed.
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
6/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*6* wp.314.12.sxw12 It is alleged that the Petitioner has been fighting for the rightsof animals since last 14 years and also a friend of Claude Lila Parulekar,who is currently under house arrest and under illegal custody of
Prataprao Pawar. The Petitioner tried to raise awareness on the plight of
animals and Lila Parulekar through a website www.jeevraksha.org which
was made together by a group of Lila's friends and animal lovers called
Jeevraksha Support Group. The Petitioner also spread the message
through leaflet and email so that Lila and her animals can get justice. It is
claimed that the Petitioner also peacefully went to the said function held
to celebrate the Birth Centenary of Dr.Nanasaheb Parulekar, father of Lila
Parulekar. The Petitioner explained people about condition of Lila and
how she is being neglected and her property is being usurped. The
Petitioner has annexed the copies of websites at Annexure-B. The
Petitioner has also referred to the notice issued to him on behalf of
Prataprao Pawar. A copy of notice is at Annexure-C and reply thereto is at
Annexure-D to the Writ Petition.
13 In paragraphs 10 and 11 of this Writ Petition, this is what is
alleged:-
10. Prataprao Govind Pawar found it humiliating that
people are being made aware of the pitiable condition
of Lila Parulekar who is the only daughter of
Nanasaheb Parulekar under whose name he runs
several trusts and institutions. He also found it
difficult to answer before public as to why is this lady
in neglect and not being allowed to meet her own
friends and well wishers. The accused therefore put to
task an entire machinery to avenge this humiliation
and also to remove him from his way for grabbing
land owned by Lila Parulekar and Jeevraksha.
11. It is also notable that the Complainant Pratap
Govindrao Pawar and Sakal Papers Limited appearsto have extreme domination over the Police
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
7/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*7* wp.314.12.sxwDepartment. The Hon'ble High Court issued orders forproper care of animals at Lila Parulekar's shelter on02.12.2011, however, the guards of Sakal Papers stilldid not allow volunteers inside the bungalow. The
Division Bench of Hon'ble Chief Justice and Justice
R.S.Dalvi, perturbed by blatant misuse of muscle
power, directed the Commissioner of Police, Pune to
provide protection to activists. Despite the specific
order to the Commissioner of Police, Pune the Police
are reluctant to act and even now animals are not
being allowed to be cared for as per orders of the High
Court. This amply illustrates what kind of respect the
Complainant has kind of clout it has over the PoliceDepartment.
14 After alleging as above and complaining that the Petitioner
was denied bail on unjustified grounds and put under arrest, what has
been then alleged is that it is the Petitioner who has been defamed and
publicly.
15 For the above reasons, what is then alleged is that a perusal
of the First Information Report would not disclose commission of any
cognizable offence. The Information Technology Act, 2000 has been
deliberately referred to purely to convert a non cognizable offence into a
cognizable one. Though there was no case under the Information
Technology Act, 2000, the Petitioner has been framed under pressure or
influence of politically well connected persons.
16 It is then stated that the website does not disclose any
menacing or offensive material. It is contended that the word menace
means threat, danger and nuisance, but nothing of that sort is emerging
from contents of the website. In these circumstances, the First
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
8/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*8* wp.314.12.sxwInformation Report deserves to be quashed.17 In support of this Writ Petition, Mr.Mor, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the complaint does not disclose
commission of any offence. The allegations in the First Information
Report are vague. The essential ingredients of the offences have not been
referred to leave alone alleged. There is enormous delay in registering the
First Information Report. The entire action is vitiated by malafides
because the Petitioner is stated to have defamed a highly influential
person. The person concerned is Prataprao Pawar, Chairman of M/s Sakal
Papers Private Limited. He is a powerful person and has thus managed to
get the First Information Report registered although a bare reading of
sections which have been invoked, would indicate that the Information
Technology Act, 2000 could not have been invoked. There are no
particulars regarding which statement attributable to the Petitioner and
appearing on the website or leaflet, is defamatory or has caused nuisance,
annoyance, etc.. Further, the word publication is not appearing in
Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. That word is
specifically to be found in Section 67 and therefore, whenever the
Legislature desires to make publication or act of publishing any offensive
or obscene material as an offence, it has specifically said so. In that
behalf, our attention is invited to Sections 66-E, 67, 67-A and 67-B of the
Information Technology Act, 2000. For these reasons, it is submitted that
the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence punishable
under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and therefore, the First
Information Report be quashed to this extent.
18 Lastly, it was urged that the statement not of the person
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
9/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*9* wp.314.12.sxwallegedly defamed is recorded, but that of an employee of M/s SakalPapers Private Limited. In these circumstances, this Writ Petition beallowed and the First Information Report to the extent prayed be
quashed.
19 On the other hand, the learned APP submits that the First
Information Report discloses commission of offences as alleged and
therefore, the Writ Petition be dismissed. Her arguments are supported by
the Complainant's Advocate as well.
20 For properly appreciating the rival contentions, a reference to
the allegations in the First Information Report would be necessary. The
gist of these allegations have been already referred by us. Suffice it to
state that the Petitioner is accused of entering the Auditorium where the
function was scheduled and on 20.09.2011. At that time, it is alleged that
the Petitioner entered the hall and with a view to disrupt the function, by
pushing some guests, started distributing pamphlets containing
defamatory statements. The title of that pamphlet has been reproduced in
the statement of the General Manager Mr.Mahendra Pisal. The website
has also been referred and therefore, the allegations are that the contents
of this website defamed the said Prataprao Pawar and Sakal Papers
Private Limited. It is alleged that this is the sole motive of distributing the
pamphlets and containing defamatory statements. Even the contents of
website affirmed this position. The said contents and of website
www.jeevraksha.org have been set out at Annexure-B page 21 and what
one finds is that they indicate, prima facie, as to how there were disputes
between Parulekars and Pawars. It has also been set out as to how the
Pawar Group filed the complaint. It is in these circumstances that one
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
10/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*10* wp.314.12.sxwfinds that the Petitioner would urge that this act, though, prima facie,may come within the purview of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian PenalCode, cannot be said to be falling within and covered by the relevant
provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
21 We have been taken through the contents of other website
which is entitledwww.savelila.com. We have also been taken through the
annexures of this Writ Petition.
22 The provisions which have been invoked, insofar as the
Information Technology Act, 2000 is concerned, are Sections 66-A and
67 which read as under:-
66-A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through
communication service, etc.:-
Any person who sends, by means of a computer
resource or a communication device--
(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has
menacing character; or
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for
the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience,
danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal
intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by
making use of such computer resource or a
communication device; or
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the
purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or todeceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about
the origin of such messages,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and with fine.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, terms
electronic mail and electronic mail message
means a message or information created ortransmitted or received on a computer, computer
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
11/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*11* wp.314.12.sxwsystem, computer resource or communication deviceincluding attachments in text, image, audio, videoand any other electronic record, which may betransmitted with the message.
67. Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene
material in electronic form.:-
Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be
published or transmitted in the electronic form, any
material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient
interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave
and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to
all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear thematter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished
on first conviction with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three
years and with fine which may extend to five lakh
rupees and in the event of second or subsequent
conviction with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to five years and also with
fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.
23 The argument of the Petitioner's Advocate is that the First
Information Report does not disclose any offence. The Information
Technology Act, 2000 is added merely to register the First Information
Report because the allegations essentially are of defamation. The
Petitioner is reserving his rights to urge that no offence punishable under
Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code is committed. That right
will be exercised by him at appropriate stage before the Trial Court.
However, the Information Technology Act, 2000 itself and provisions in
question could not have been invoked particularly because website is not
covered within the subject provision.
24 In this behalf, a perusal of Section 66-A and which has been
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
12/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*12* wp.314.12.sxwinvoked in this case, would make it clear that same provides forpunishment for sending offensive messages through communicationservice etc.. Any person who sends by means of a computer resource or a
communication device and in this case, any information which he knows
to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience,
danger, obstruction, insult, injury, etc. persistently by making use of such
computer resource or a communication device, shall be punished. The
explanation to the same would make it clear that what is punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine,
is an act of sending, by means of a computer resource or a communication
device, any information which the person knows to be false and he sends
such information persistently by making use of such computer resource or
communication device for the purpose of causing annoyance,
inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation,
enmity, hatred or ill-will. The terms electronic mail and electronic mail
message have been defined to mean a message or information created or
transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer
resource or communication device including attachments in text, images,
audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted
with the message.
25 It is, therefore, common knowledge that these terms would
not have been defined in the explanation, had the intent of the legislature
been not to include within the purview of this provision the sending of
any information through website. In this behalf, the definition of the term
information in Section 2(1)(v) is to be read along with the terms
communication device, computer, computer network, computer resource,
computer system which definitions are to be found in the very Section
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
13/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*13* wp.314.12.sxw2(1). It would be apparent that sending offensive messages throughcommunication service would include computer or website and that isimplicit therein. The word data as defined in Section 2(1)(o) and other
definitions referred to above, read thus:-
Section 2(1) :-
(ha). communication device means cell phones, personal
digital assistance or combination of both or any
other device used to communicate, send or transmit
any text, video, audio or image.
(i) computer means any electronic, magnetic, opticalor other high-speed data processing device or system
which performs logical, arithmetic and memory
functions by manipulations of electronic, magnetic or
optical impulses, and includes all input, output,
processing, storage, computer software or
communication facilities which are connected or
related to the computer in a computer system or
computer network.
(j) computer network means the inter-connection of
one or more computers or computer systems or
communication device through--
(i) the use of satellite, microwave, terrestrial line,
wire, wireless or other communication media; and
(ii) terminals or a complex consisting of two or
more inter-connected computers or communication
device whether or not the inter-connection is
continuously maintained.
(k) computer resource means computer, computer
system, computer network, data, computer data base
or software.
(l) computer system means a device or collection of
devices, including input and output support devices
and excluding calculators which are not
programmable and capable of being used in
conjunction with external files which containcomputer programmes, electronic instructions, input
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
14/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*14* wp.314.12.sxwdata and output data that performs logic, arithmetic,data storage and retrieval, communication controland other functions.(o) data means a representation of information,
knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions which are
being prepared or have been prepared in a formalised
manner, and is intended to be processed, is being
processed or has been processed in a computer system
or computer network, and may be in any form
(including computer printouts magnetic or optical
storage media, punched cards, punched tapes) or
stored internally in the memory of the computer.
(v) information includes data, message, text, images,
sound, voice, codes, computer programmes, software
and data bases or micro film or computer generated
micro fiche.
26 A perusal of all these definitions would indicate that had the
Legislature intended to leave out or exclude website, that would havebeen by specific provision. If the intent is not to bring within the net or
purview of punishing or penal provision, an act of sending, by means of a
computer resource or a communication device, the grossly offensive or
menacing information or false information for the purpose of causing
annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, etc., then,
the Legislature would not have included clause (c) in Section 66-A.
27 However, the argument before us is that the explanation
below Section 66-A is applicable to clause (c) and not the earlier clauses.
However, that argument is fallacious for the simple reason that sending
any information of the above nature, by means of a computer resource or
a communication device, is pertaining to data, text, images, audio, video,
etc. and therefore, relatable to Section 2(1)(v), whereas, any person
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
15/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*15* wp.314.12.sxwsending any electronic mail or electronic mail message, by means of acomputer resource of a communication device, has also to be includedand therefore, when such an act of a person is also included within the
penal provision, then, the definition of the terms email and email
message was required to be incorporated and was thus, incorporated for
completeness. That does not mean that sending information by website
alone is included. If any mail or message in electronic form has not been
sent through a computer resource or a communication device, then, that
is out of the purview of the penal provision. On the other hand, the
provision refers to both computer resource, so also, communication device
inasmuch as it is not that merely a computer resource and sending
something of the above nature by that means alone is punishable. Any
communication device utilized for sending information of the above
nature is brought in and hence, there is no merit in the submissions of the
learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. There is definition of the
term computer and which has communication facilities and which are
connected or related to a computer or computer system or computer
network and equally information is transmitted and mails or messages are
given not only through computers, but communication devices as well.
Everything that is offensive or menacing or causing annoyance,
inconvenience, danger, insult, injury, etc. is thus, prohibited and such act
is made punishable.
28 This aspect becomes very clear if one peruses Section 66
which has been substituted by the Information Technology (Amendment)
Act, 2008 (10 of 2009) w.e.f. 27.10.2009. That Section 66 reads as
under:-
66. Computer related offences:-If any person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
16/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*16* wp.314.12.sxwact referred to in section 43, he shall be punishablewith imprisonment for a term which may extend tothree years or with fine which may extend to fivelakh 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 Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860);
(b) the word fraudulently shall have the
meaning assigned to it in section 25 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860).
29 Therefore, Chapter XI terms the acts covered in each of the
provisions therein as offences and which are punishable. These sections
have to be read harmoniously with other provisions so as to make a
consistent enactment of the whole. The object and purpose of the Act as
enunciated in the Preamble is thus to safeguard and protect those making
positive use of the Information Technology. Those intending to misuse it
or abuse it have to be penalised and bearing in mind its tremendous
potential. The users are of different categories and come from all strata in
the society. Thus, the honest use is to be encouraged and dishonest one
has to be discouraged. Therefore, this argument must also fail.
30 The other argument is equally untenable and that is, there is
no question of sending any information by merely storing it in the
website. It is submitted that incorporating some matter about any person
in website does not mean sending it. It remains in the website. This is not
publication or circulation and therefore, this act is not covered by the
subject provision at all. A person is not sending anything by merely
creating a website. The ordinary and plain meaning of this term belies this
contention. It is defined to mean computing a location connected to the
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
17/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*17* wp.314.12.sxwInternet that maintains one or more web pages.31 This contention is fallacious because the definition of the
terms computer system, computer network and computer resource would
make it clear that the Legislature had in mind all such acts as are
presently attributed to the Petitioner. It is abundantly clear that we are
dealing with are computer related offences. The computer network or
website can be accessed by anybody. The website on which the
information is stored was accessed in this case by the aggrieved
Complainant. That such website was created incorporating information is,
prima facie, undisputed. That by creating itself would not mean sending
it, is the argument.
32 That argument is wholly misconceived. The ordinary
meaning of send is deposit in mail or deliver for transmission. It is also
defined to mean (a) cause to go or be taken or delivered to a particular
destination and (b) arrange for someone to attend. In these
circumstances we do not see how this act of the Petitioner will not come
within the purview of the subject provisions of the Information
Technology Act, 2000. The argument is that whenever the Legislature
intended that publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic
form is an offence, it has incorporated specific provision to that effect in
the enactment. The language of Section 67 is, therefore, pressed into
service. In the present case, sending cannot be termed as publishing or
transmitting.
33 Once again this argument fails to take note of the fact that
the area and field covered by two provisions, namely, Sections 66-A and
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
18/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*18* wp.314.12.sxw67, is not the same. The act of sending offensive messages throughcommunication services, etc. is a punishable offence under Section 66-A.Equally, the act of publishing or transmitting obscene material in
electronic form is an offence by virtue of Section 67. That is dealing with
the obscene material and the act of publishing and transmitting it, has
been referred and included. Section 66-A provides for punishment for
sending offensive messages. The message, which is in the form of
information, is of offensive and menacing character or false or causing
annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, etc. is covered by first two
clauses of Section 66-A and by clause (c), electronic mail or electronic
mail message has been brought within the purview and for obvious
reasons. It is not just an offensive, menacing or false information intended
to cause annoyance, inconvenience, obstruction, etc. which is dealt with,
but the resource or device utilized are also specifically referred. In other
words, without identifying the resource or device used for sending
information and message, it will not be proper to make it punishable. In
other words, the Legislature intended that the information emanating
from computer resource meaning thereby computer system, computer
network, computer database or software, must be included and that is
how it used the term computer resource. When the act of sending
offensive message is emanating from communication device, then, for the
sake of clarity and completeness, the Legislature referred to the
communication device and thus, referred to Section 2(1)(ha) of the
Information Technology Act, 2000. The Information Technology Act, 2000
has brought in a legislation so as to provide legal recognition for
transactions carried out by means of electronic data interchange and
other means of electronic communication, commonly referred to as
electronic commerce, which involve the use of alternatives to paper-
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
19/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*19* wp.314.12.sxwbased methods of communication and storage of information, to facilitateelectronic filing of documents with the Government agencies and furtherto amend the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the
Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891 and the Reserve Bank of India Act,
1934 and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
34 The statement of objects and reasons of the Amendment Act
10 of 2009 clarifies that the Information Technology Act, 2000 was
enacted with a view to give a fillip to the growth of electronic based
transactions, to provide legal recognition for e-commerce and e-
transactions, to facilitate e-governance, to prevent computer based crimes
and ensure security practices and procedures in the context of widest
possible use of information technology worldwide. The statement of
objects and reasons of the Amendment Act 10 of 2009 reads as under:-
Amendment Act 10 of 2009.
Statement of objects and reasons:-
1. The Information Technology Act was enacted in the
year 2000 with a view to give a fillip to the growth of
electronic based transactions, to provide legal
recognition for e-commerce and e-transactions, to
facilitate e-governance, to prevent computer based
crimes and ensure security practices and procedures in
the context of widest possible use of information
technology worldwide.
2. With proliferation of information technology enabledservices such as e-governance, e-commerce and e-
transactions, protection of personal data and
information and implementation of security practices
and procedures relating to these applications of
electronic communications have assumed greater
importance and they require harmonisation with the
provisions of the Information Technology Act. Further,
protection of Critical Information Infrastructure is
pivotal to national security, economy, public healthand safety, so it has become necessary to declare such
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
20/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*20* wp.314.12.sxwinfrastructure as a protected system so as to restrictits access.3. A rapid increase in the use of computer and internethas given rise to new forms of crimes like publishing
sexually explicit materials in electronic form, video
voyeurism and breach of confidentiality and leakage
of data by intermediary, e-commerce frauds like
personation commonly known as Phishing, identity
theft and offensive messages through communication
services. So, penal provisions are required to be
included in the Information Technology Act, the
Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence Act and the
Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent such crimes.4. The United Nations Commission on International
Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in the year 2001 adopted the
Model Law on Electronic Signatures. The General
Assembly of the United Nations by its resolution
No.56/80, dated 12th December, 2001, recommended
that all States accord favourable consideration to the
said Model Law on Electronic Signatures. Since the
digital signatures are linked to a specific technology
under the existing provisions of the InformationTechnology Act, it has become necessary to provide for
alternate technology of electronic signatures for
bringing harmonisation with the said Model Law.
5. The service providers may be authorised by the
Central Government or the State Government to set
up, maintain and upgrade the computerised facilities
and also collect, retain and appropriate service
charges for providing such services at such scale as
may be specified by the Central Government or the
State Government.6. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.
35 Therefore, to urge that creation of website by facilitating its
access to others does not mean sending any information, would be
incorrect and not in tune with the legislative mandate. In Encyclopaedia
of Information Technology Law, E-mail, the Internet and the Law, Essential
Knowledge for Safer Surfing, Tim Kevan and Paul McGrath, Universal Law
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
21/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*21* wp.314.12.sxwPublishing Company, Second Indian Reprint 2010, with reference todecided cases by the Courts in United States of America and UnitedKingdom, the authors point out the mischief that is imminent and by
ingenious defences. The Authors observed thus:-
From the above it is readily appreciable that e-
mail and the internet will complicate matters in this
area. The most notorious case at present in this area is
Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd. [1999] 4 ALL ER 342.
There, the defendant was an internet service provider
(ISP) who offered a Usenet facility enabling persons to
publish material to readers across the globe. Personswould submit their work (postings) to the local service
provider who would then disseminate them via the
internet. The defendant's Usegroup facility kept the
articles for two weeks. On 13th January 1997 an
article was posted which was purportedly written by
the claimant. It was a forgery and defamatory of the
claimant. On 17th January the claimant informed the
defendant of the forgery and asked that the matter be
removed. The defendant did not remove the entry untilthe expiry of the two weeks period (i.e. 27th January).
The claimant brought proceedings alleging defamation
for the period between 17th January and 27th January.
The defendants argued, inter alia, that they were not
the common law publishers.
Morland J. held that the Defendants were
indeed common law publishers:
In my judgment the defendant, whenever it
transmits and whenever there is transmitted from the
storage of its news server a defamatory posting,publish that posting to any subscriber to its ISP who
accesses the newsgroup containing that posting. Thus
every time one of the defendant's customers accesses
soc.culture.thai and sees that posting defamatory of
the plaintiff there is a publication to that customer
(at 348e-f).
The defendant had submitted that they were
merely the owner of an electronic device throughwhich postings were transmitted. However, Morland J.
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
22/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*22* wp.314.12.sxwrejected such a submission pointing to the fact that thedefendant stored postings within its computers andcould be accessed on that newsgroup. Further, thedefendant had sufficient control to obliterate the
postings when it felt so necessary. The decision is of
fundamental importance to ISPs. It also shows the
wide construction being applied to publication in the
internet field. .
The American authorities were reviewed in
some depth but then swiftly dealt with by stating that
the American law and English law were different in
approach and therefore the cases were of limitedpersuasiveness. This case acknowledges that the
internet, and information on it, is not merely provided
by mechanical processes. The ISPs are to be seen as
living operations with control, and ultimately
responsibility, over the material that they provide.
(see page 64 and 65)
This apprehension has also been expressed by some Indianwriters who have contributed their articles on this point. A comparison
between Sections 66-A and 67 is, therefore, out of place.
36 Equally, other argument that the term inconvenience
appearing in Section 66-A(b) will enable parties like the Complainant in
this case, to involve the Petitioner and others like him in false criminal
case, cannot be accepted. It is stated that any information which is
inconvenient, does not mean it is offensive or menacing in character. That
may be informing public or anybody about a person or making any
remark or recording any opinion about his conduct and character. It is
bound to cause him inconvenience and by that act alone the offence is not
committed. Some information which may be inconvenient, but that does
not invite the penalty.
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
23/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*23* wp.314.12.sxw37 This argument is required to be stated only to be rejected. Inthis case, what the Legislature has termed as an offence and which invites
punishment is sending any information by means of a computer resource
as in this case which a person knows to be false, but it calculated to cause
annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, etc.
persistently by making use of a computer resource or a communication
device. Therefore, the act is an offence only because false information is
being sent and for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, etc..
Persistently sending such false information is an offence. The word
inconvenience, therefore, must not be read in isolation or out of
context. The word takes its colour from other words in clause (b) of
Section 66-A. The dictionary meaning of the term inconvenience is a
discomfort; something that gives trouble. In Advanced Law Lexicon by
P.Ramanatha Aiyar, 3 rd Edition Reprint 2007, this is the meaning ascribed
to the term inconvenience. In ordinary and common parlance, the word
inconvenience as defined in New Concise Oxford English Dictionary,
Indian Edition, means the state or fact of being slightly troublesome or
difficult. It also means causing trouble, difficulties or discomfort.
38 If the information which the person sending knows to be false
is sent persistently for causing annoyance, then, it is bound to be
inconvenient in the sense it causes discomfiture. It is to create trouble and
make things difficult for him. It is in this backdrop that the word is used
and salutary principles of interpretation of statute that no word or no
phrase be read in isolation, but must be read in the context and consistent
with the intendment of the legislature, will govern the interpretation here.
Therefore, merely because the legislature had to incorporate some word
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
24/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*24* wp.314.12.sxwor term that it did not add it in this case. The word inconvenience wasused so that everything which is false and sent persistently will be abusingthe information technology. Such abuse of information technology has to
be prevented at all costs. It is in that backdrop that the legislature has
made a comprehensive provision and we do not find that there is
anything which interferes with the right of a person to communicate
through the means of this technology. It is intended to further the right
and particularly the fundamental freedom of speech and expression. The
freedom of speech and expression is not absolute, but subject to some
restrictions. That freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions and
anything that is indecent or contemptuous or defamatory cannot be said
to be covered in this right or freedom, is too well settled to require any
reference to either the Indian Constitution or any case law. It is settled
principle that just as every citizen is guaranteed freedom of speech and
expression, every citizen also has a right to protect his reputation, which
is regarded as a property. Hence, nobody can so use his freedom of speech
and expression as to injure another's reputation. In the context of right to
seek information or right to publish or circulate the views in periodicals,
magazines, journals or through electronic media, what has been held is
that this freedom must, however, be exercised with circumspection and
care must be taken not to trench on the rights of other citizens or to
jeopardise public interest. (See Life Insurance Corporation of India v/s
Manubhai D. Shah (1992)3 SCC 637). In this context, what has been
held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry
of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v/s Cricket
Association of Bengal, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1236 and after a survey
of all decisions in the field, is extremely relevant and that reads thus:-
52. Article 19(1)(a) declares that all citizens shall havethe right of freedom of speech and expression. Clause
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
25/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*25* wp.314.12.sxw(2) of Article 19, at the same time, provides thatnothing in sub-clause (1) of clause (1) shall affect theoperation of any existing law or prevent the Statefrom making any law, insofar as such law imposes
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right
conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the
State, friendly relations with the foreign States,
public order, decency or morality or in relation to
contempt of court, defamation or incitement of an
offence. The grounds upon which reasonable
restrictions can be placed upon the freedom of speech
and expression are designed firstly to ensure that thesaid right is not exercised in such a manner as to
threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India,
security of the State, friendly relations with the
foreign States, public order, decency or morality.
Similarly, the said right cannot be so exercised as to
amount to contempt of court, defamation or
incitement of an offence. Existing laws providing
such restrictions are saved and the State is free to
make laws in future imposing such restrictions.The grounds aforesaid are conceived in the interest
of ensuring and maintaining conditions in which
the said right can meaningfully and peacefully be
exercised by the citizens of this country.
53. The freedom of speech and expression is a right given
to every citizen of this country and not merely to a
few. No one can exercise his right of speech in such a
manner as to violate another man's right of speech.
One man's right to speak ends where the other man'sright to speak begins. Indeed, it may be the duty of
the State to ensure that this right is available to all in
equal measure and that it is not hijacked by a few
to the detriment of the rest. This obligation flows
from the preamble to our Constitution, which seeks
to secure to all its citizens liberty of thought,
expression, belief and worship. State being a product
of the Constitution is as much committed to this goal
as any citizen of this country. Indeed, this obligationalso flows from the injunction in Article 14 that "the
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
26/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*26* wp.314.12.sxwState shall not deny to any person equality before thelaw" and the direction in Article 38(2) to the effect:"the State, shall, in particular- endeavour toeliminate inequalities in status, facilities and
opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also
amongst groups of people......... Under our
Constitutional scheme, the State is not merely under
an obligation to respect the fundamental rights
guaranteed by Part-III but under an equal obligation
to ensure conditions in which those rights can
be meaningfully and effectively enjoyed by one and
all.
39 In the above circumstances, we do not find that the present
act of the Petitioner as termed by him is merely causing inconvenience
and therefore, he is sought to be proceeded against. It is only a false
information which causes inconvenience and if it is sent persistently and
not otherwise. That is the offence. Such construction of the provision in
question would avoid any person sending the messages being hauled up
and punished unnecessarily as apprehended by the Petitioner. Ultimately,
whether any offence within the meaning of this section has been
committed or not will depend upon the facts and circumstances in each
case. Whether the allegations in the complaint are proved beyond
reasonable doubt will depend upon the evidence led by parties. It is open
for the Trial Court to arrive at an independent conclusion in each case as
to whether the charge is proved by satisfying itself that the essential
ingredients of the section are established or not.
40 As a result of the above discussion and when we find that
there is no material which would vitiate the registration of the First
Information Report in this case nor can it be said to be lacking in
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
27/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*27* wp.314.12.sxwparticulars or vague, then, our discretionary and equitable jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be invoked by the Petitioner. The
Petitioner cannot request us to interfere in our such jurisdiction merely
because in his opinion the First Information Report is delayed. That is a
plea which the Petitioner can raise at appropriate stage and during the
trial. Therefore, such general and vague plea need not detain us.
41 In this behalf we would fail in our duty if we do not invite the
attention of all concerned to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme
Court in the case of State of Karnataka and another v/s Dr.Praveen Bhai
Thogadia, reported in AIR 2004 SC 2081. The Supreme Court observed
as under:-
7. ... No person, however, big he may assume or claim
to be, should be allowed irrespective of the position he
may assume or claim to hold in public life to either
act in a manner or make speeches with would destroy
secularism recognised by the Constitution of India,
1950. ....
8. .... The valuable and cherished right of freedom of
expression and speech may at times have to be
subjected to reasonable subordination of social
interests, needs and necessities to preserve the very
chore of democratic life preservation of public order
and rule of law. At some such grave situation at least
the decision as to the need and necessity to take
prohibitory actions must be left to the discretion ofthose entrusted with the duty of maintaining law and
order, and interposition of Courts unless a concrete
case of abuse or exercise of such sweeping powers for
extraneous considerations by the authority concerned
or that such authority was shown to act at the behest
of those in power, and interference as a matter of
course and as though adjudicating an appeal, will
defeat the very purpose of legislation and legislative
intent. ...10. .... Welfare of the people is the ultimate goal of all
::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2013 07:40:01 :::
7/30/2019 Manoj Oswal Case- 66A- Bom HC
28/28
Bombay
HighCour
t*28* wp.314.12.sxwlaws, and State action and above all the Constitution.They have one common object, that is to promote wellbeing and larger interest of the society as a whole andnot of any individual or particular groups carrying
any brand names. It is inconceivable that there can be
social well being without communal harmony, love
for each other and hatred for none. The chore of
religion based upon spiritual values, which the Vedas,
Upanishad and Puranas were said to reveal to
mankind seem to be Love others, serve others, help
ever, hurt never and Sarvae Jana Sukhino
Bhavantoo. Oneupship in the name of religion,
whichever it be or at whomsoever's instance it be,would render constitutional designs countermanded
and chaos, claiming its heavy toll on society and
humanity as a whole, may be the inevitable evil
consequences, whereof. ....
42 In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition fails. Rule is
discharged.
43 At this stage, a request is made to continue the ad-interim
order dated 13.03.2012 for a period of eight weeks to enable the
Petitioner to challenge this judgment in a higher court. This request is
opposed by the Complainant's Advocate. Having heard the counsel on this
point, what we find is that the petition is dismissed by us after holding
that the First Information Report discloses prima facie commission of a
cognizable offence. Further, what we find is that the arguments wererestricted to interpretation of Section 66-A of the Information Technology
Act, 2000. The First Information Report alleges commission of offence
punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code as well. In these
circumstances the request as made cannot be granted. This request is
refused.
(S.B.Shukre, J.) (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)