Rohit Anandsingh Kotwal Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.357 OF 2007

¶4

 Rohit Anandsingh Kotwal .. Petitioner.
 Vs.
 State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶5

 Mr.K.H.Holambe Patil for the petitioner.
 Ms.P.H.Kantharia APP for the State.

¶6

CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI &
D.B.BHOSALE, JJ.
DATED : 20TH JUNE, 2007.

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
 learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶9

 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime
 No.3214 of 2006 registered under sections 65 and 66
 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. We have
 heard learned counsel for the petitioner at great
 length. The learned counsel contended that the crime
 registered against the petitioner deserves to be
 quashed because no offence can be said to have been
 committed by him. The learned counsel led stress on
 section 65 of the said Act. Section 65 reads thus:

¶10

 "65. Tampering with computer source
 documents:- Whoever knowingly or
 intentionally conceals, destroys or alters or
 intentionally or knowingly causes another to
 conceal, destroy or alter any computer source
 code used for a computer, computer programme,
 computer system or computer network, when the
 computer source code is required to be kept

¶11

:2:

¶12

 or maintained by law for the time being in
 force, shall be punishable with imprisonment
 up to three years, or with fine which may
 extend up to two lakh rupees, or with both."

¶13

 . The learned counsel contended that under this
 section whoever knowingly or intentionally conceals,
 destroys or alters or intentionally or knowingly
 causes another to conceal, destroy or alter any
 computer source code used for a computer, computer
 programme, computer system or computer network, when
 the computer source code is required to be kept or
 maintained by law for the time being in force, shall
 be punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or
 with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees. The
 learned counsel contended that there is no law in
 force which requires the computer source code to be
 kept or maintained and, therefore, no offence can be
 said to have been committed by the petitioner.

¶14

 3. Prima facie, in our opinion, section 65 of

¶15

 the said Act cannot be interpreted in the manner in
 which the learned counsel for the petitioner wants us
 to interpret it. But we do not deem it appropriate
 to consider the contentions urged by the learned
 counsel for the petitioner at this stage and we keep
 all contentions raised in the petition open.

¶16

 4. The petitioner’s contentions can only be

¶17

:3:

¶18

 considered when he co-operates with the

¶19

 investigation, evidence is collected and charge sheet
 is filed. At this stage the entire proceedings
 cannot be quashed on the ground of such
 interpretation of section 65. Besides, we may note
 that the petitioner is also charged under section 66
 of the said Act which pertains to hacking of computer
 system. In our opinion, therefore, no case is made
 out for quashing of the case.

¶20

 5. We deem it fit to note the serious grievance
 made by Ms.Kantharia, learned A.P.P. for the State
 that the petitioner has consistently avoided service
 of notice of arrest issued by the investigating
 agency. The investigating agency wanted to issue 72
 hours notice pursuant to the order passed by the
 Sessions Court. It is only when this grievance was
 raised by the learned A.P.P. before us on the last
 occasion and we directed the petitioner to appear in
 this court that the petitioner appeared today and the
 notice has been served on him. In the circumstances
 the petition is dismissed.

¶21

 (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.)

¶22

 (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

¶23

:4:

¶24

 3. We do not deem it appropriate to consider the
 contentions urged by the learned counsel for the
 petitioner at this stage. We cannot loose a sight of
 the fact that the offence is registered not only
 under section 65 but it is also registered under
 section 66 of the Information Technology Act. Though
 prima facie we have our own doubts about contentions
 urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in
 our opinion, looking to peculiar facts and
 circumstances of the case we keep all the contentions
 open for the petitioner to agitate only when the
 petitioner co-operates with the investigation,
 evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed
 before the court. In any case, at this stage the
 entire proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground of
 interpretation of section 65. The investigating
 agency needs to be given a free hand to carry out the
 investigation. In our opinion, no case is made out
 for quashing of the case. We deem it fit to note the
 serious grievance made by Ms.Kantharia, learned
 A.P.P. for the State that the petitioner has
 consistently avoided service of notice of arrest
 issued by the investigating agency. The
 investigating agency wanted to issue 72 hours notice
 pursuant to the order passed by the Sessions Court.
 It is only when this grievance was raised by the
 learned A.P.P. before us on the last occasion and we

¶25

:5:

¶26

 directed the petitioner to appear in this court that
 the petitioner appeared today and the notice has been
 served on him. In the circumstances the petition is
 dismissed.

¶27

 (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.)

¶28

 (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Rohit Anandsingh Kotwal v. the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Anandsingh Kotwal v. the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

W.T.Balaji Vs State Bank of Hyderabad and Ors.

Harichandra Balkrishna Vichare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunanda Suryakant Javkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hanumant Govind Chandgude Vs Rajaram Shrirang Bhosale and Ors.

Happy Textile Ltd. Vs Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and Ors.

T. Geetha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.