CCITL Assignment

Heena Sharma
PROV/MBA-9-20/016
MBA - IB (July 2020-2022)

1. “Section 67 of IT Act 2000 governs Punishment for publishing or transmitting

obscene material in electronic form”. Substantiate with a case law highlighting
brief facts, judgment, and principles of judgment.

Answer:

Section 67 – Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form

Relevant Case

Facts: This case is about posting obscene, defamatory and annoying message about a divorcee
woman in the Yahoo message group. E-mails were forwarded to the victim for information by the
accused through a false e- mail account opened by him in the name of the victim. These postings
resulted in annoying phone calls to the lady. Based on the lady’s complaint, the police nabbed the
accused. Investigation revealed that he was a known family friend of the victim and was interested in
marrying her. She was married to another person, but that marriage ended in divorce and the accused
started contacting her once again. On her reluctance to marry him he started harassing her through
internet.

Judgement: The accused was found guilty of offences under section 469, 509 IPC and 67 of IT Act
2000. He is convicted and sentenced for the offence as follows:
 As per 469 of IPC he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years
and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
 As per 509 of IPC he is to undergo to undergo 1 year Simple
imprisonment and to pay Rs 500/-
 As per Section 67 of IT Act 2000, he has to undergo for 2 years and to
pay fine of Rs.4000/-

All sentences were to run concurrently.

The accused paid fine amount and he was lodged at Central Prison, Chennai. This is considered the
first case convicted under section 67 of Information Technology Act 2000 in India.

2. “Section 67B of IT Act 2000 governs Punishment for publishing or transmitting

of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form”.
Substantiate with a case law highlighting brief facts, judgment, and principles of
judgment.

Answer:

Section 67B – Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in

sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form.

Relevant Case: Chandana Gouda S/O. Ramanna ... vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2021
Facts:  It is the case of the prosecution that one Gudnappa has lodged the complaint on 24.02.2021
stating that his daughter-victim girl aged 13 years was returning to home after attending the nature's
call, at that time, accused No.1 approached her and told her that she needs to sleep with him and tried
to pull her by holding her hand and when his daughter tried to escape, accused No.4 holding a knife in
his hand, threatened to kill her in case if she does not cooperate. The other two accused i.e. accused
Nos.2 and 3 gave life threat, if she does not cooperate with accused No.1. The accused No.1 embraced
the complainant's daughter and took her near the bush and had forcible sexual intercourse with her
after disrobing her. It is further contended that accused No.2, photographed the sexual act of
intercourse and all the accused threatened her stating that if the incident is revealed by her to anyone,
the photographs will be circulated through WhatsApp and they left the scene. Thereafter, it is further
contended that accused No.2, forwarded the photographs pertaining to sexual intercourse to a
WhatsApp group named 'BJP Ghataka Hireuppinala'.

The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.20/2021 for the offences punishable
under Sections 354C, 354D, 376(1), 376, 506(2), 376(2), 34, 109, 376(3) of IPC and Section 17 and 4
of POCSO Act and Section 67(B) of IT Act.

Judgement: In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of
the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following:

Order passed: The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the
petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 shall be released on bail in Crime No.20/2021 of Ilkal Rural Police
Station subject to the following conditions:

Shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with one surety
for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. Due to COVID- 19, the petitioner is
permitted to furnish surety within two months. If circumstances arise, the jurisdictional Court is
permitted to extend the period for furnishing surety.

ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The petitioners shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and co-operate in
speedy disposal of the case.

iv) The petitioners shall not enter Hireupanal village in Ilkal Taluk, Bagalkot District, till the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses is completed.

3. “Section 71 of IT Act 2000 governs Penalty for misrepresentation”. Substantiate

with a case law highlighting brief facts, judgment, and principles of judgment.

Answer:

"Section 71 - Penalty for misrepresentation: Whoever makes any representation, or suppresses

any material fact from the controller or certifying authority for obtaining any licence or digital
signature certificate, as the case may be, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both."

Relevant case - Johnson Gilbert vs The Sub-Collector And Secretary on 14 March, 2019
Facts: For the purpose of canvassing more business, the 1 st petitioner decided to go online and he
registered a website in the name www.alleppeysnakeboatrace.com and invited tourists to the event.
Through the website, the 1 st petitioner promoted stay in the houseboats and also gave the added
bonus of watching the boat race. The 1st petitioner does not dispute that several persons had
purchased tickets from the website for watching the race.

While so, on 28.6.2018, a complaint was lodged by the Secretary, NTBRS, alleging that the two
websites were engaged in the sale of tickets for the 68th Nehru Trophy Boat Race to be held in the
year 2018. A crime was promptly registered under Sections 463, 465, 468 of the IPC
and Section 71 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The 1st petitioner was arrested and he was
remanded to judicial custody. The wife of the 1st petitioner was later arrayed as the 2nd accused.

Judgement: Sri.Prasanth.S, the petitioners' skilled lawyer, will argue that the start of criminal
proceedings against the petitioners is a blatant abuse of process. The accusations in the first
information report or the Secretary's complaint, even if taken at face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence or establish a case against the accused, according to
the submission. The prosecution has no case, according to the experienced counsel, that the petitioners
made any fraudulent papers with the aim to cause harm or injury to the public or to any individual
with the intent to conduct fraud. The NTBRS is selling tickets to view the event from the pavilion,
galleries, and lawn that the Society has set aside for that purpose.

The tickets offered by the first petitioner, on the other hand, are for sitting on the deck of a boat
anchored in the lake and observing the event. The NTBRS has set various fees for anchoring the boat,
as shown in Annexure-D. Annexure-B bank statement shows that the 1st petitioner paid the Society
Rs.60,000/- the previous year and was allowed to anchor the boats, and that too at a vantage position.
The de facto complaint cannot intervene into the way in which the petitioners were carrying out their
business in exercise of their constitutional rights, contends the learned counsel, after giving an
indication that it was open for the petitioners to moor the boat in the finishing place.

For the same reason, the petitioners will not be found guilty of an offence under Section 468 of the
IPC since they did not conduct any forgeries with the intent to defraud the de facto complainant or
anybody else. Section 71 of the Information Technology Act of 2000, according to the experienced
counsel, has no application. Because they do not have a licence to issue an electronic signature
certificate, the petitioners have not deceived or withheld any significant information from the
Controller or the certifying body in order to obtain any licence or Electronic Signature Certificate.

4. “Section 72A of IT Act 2000 governs Punishment for Disclosure of information

in breach of lawful contract”. Substantiate with a case law highlighting brief
facts, judgment, and principles of judgment.

Answer:

Section 72A of IT Act 2000 governs Punishment for Disclosure of information in breach
of lawful contract

Relevant Case – Google India Private Ltd vs M/S. Visakha Industries on 10 December, 2019

Facts: The complaint is a public limited firm that manufactures and sells asbestos cement sheets
across India, with seven production sites and around twenty-five marketing offices. It is also said,
among other things, that the product is made in an environmentally sustainable manner at all of its
factories. The first defendant is the Coordinator of Ban Asbestos India, an organisation that the
appellant hosts. The mentioned organisation publishes articles on a regular basis. An article was
published on November 21, 2008. "Poisoning the system: Hindustan Times," it said. The case cited a
number of well-known politicians in the nation who had nothing to do with the company's ownership
or operation. The item dated 31.07.2008, headlined "Visaka Asbestos Industries earning profits,"
shocked the complainant. Asbestos cement sheets have been made in India for more than 70 years,
according to reports. Despite the fact that other companies manufacture asbestos cement products, the
first accused singled out the plaintiff.

Judgement: The appellant's reliance on Section 79 of The Information Technology Act, 2000
(hereafter referred to as "the Act" for short) was determined to not protect a network service provider
from accountability, much less criminal culpability, for violations under other laws or, more
specifically, the IPC. It was also discovered that the aforesaid provision excused Network Service
Providers from responsibility only if they could show that the offence or breach was committed
without their knowledge or that they had used all reasonable efforts to prevent it. In this case, the
accused might provide proof by giving evidence. This is a factual issue that the High Court cannot
address in the petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.
The Court thereafter takes note of the modified Section 79 of the Act, which took effect on October
27, 2009. It was highlighted that a non obstante phrase was only inserted under the said modification,
putting the application of other laws beyond the scope in a fact scenario covered by the said provision.
The exemption under Section 79 of the Act could no longer be claimed if the intermediary engages in
any conspiracy, according to the modified Section 79. Similarly, even after acquiring actual
knowledge of the offensive content or criminal activities, the intermediary might not claim exemption
if he failed to delete or prevent access to it promptly.
The complaint was instituted in January, 2009. It related to an offence which was being perpetuated
from 31.07.2008 onwards, i.e., since long before prior to the amendment of the said provision. It was
finally found that there was no exemption of any criminal law in respect of a company which is a
juristic person and which has no body that can be damned or condemned, in case found guilty.
Appellant can be awarded with appropriate punishment though not corporal punishment. Finding no
merit, the petition was dismissed.

5. “Section 73 of IT Act 2000 governs Penalty for publishing electronic Signature

Certificate false in certain particulars”. Substantiate with a case law highlighting
brief facts, judgment, and principles of judgment.

Answer:

Relevant Case: Nandkishore Ganesh Joshi Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Kalyan &
Dombivali [2004] Insc 651 (15 October 2004)

Facts: The Appellant, who is also the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Second
Respondent-Municipal Corporation of City of Kalyan and Dombivali (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Corporation,') had filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, requesting the issuance of a writ of
or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure that whenever a proposal for grant of
approval of the contract in terms of Section 73. The High Court rejected the writ petition based on an
interpretation of paragraph (c) of Section 73 of the Act as well as the Appellant's locus.

Judgement: The proviso attached to Section 73 carves out an exception to the general norm, which
appears to have been adopted to prevent any delay, and would apply in a circumstance where the
Standing Committee, despite meeting, refuses or fails to take any action. Without a question, a legal
fiction has been constructed, but it cannot be put into practise in a vacuum. In this circumstance, it
should be used with consideration for the legislative aim, and a limited interpretation should be
ascribed to it. It is also well-known that a legislation must be interpreted in such a way that it is usable
- Ut res magis valeat quam pereat. [See Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Others vs. Union of India
and Others (2003) 7 SCC 589] and Andhra Bank vs. B. Satyanarayana and Others (2004) 2 SCC 657].