Tag: #IndianPenalCode

S.no	Contents
1.	INTRODUCTION
2.	UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF CORRUPTION
3.	HISTORY OF CORRUPTION IN INDIA
4.	REASONS FOR RISING CORRUPTION IN INDIA
5.	EFFECTS OR CONSEQUENCES OF CORRUPTION
6.	STEPS TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT TO CURB THE PRACTICES
7.	EVOLUTION OF THE ACT
8.	AMENDMENTS IN ACT FOR BETTER WORKING
9.	PENALTY AFTER 2018 AMENDMENT
10.	CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION 

Even after 75 years of Independence India is struggling or lacking to resolve the expanding problem of corruption in the nation. Corruption is the practice that is prevailing in the roots of the nation to get work done through backdoors or an illegal or illicit way and at the same time it is acting as a backfire step in the evolution or growth of the nation. The practice of corruption is seen as a hindrance and as a major barrier to success for developing countries like India. As India is a country with a vast and growing population is a tough and challenging problem to regulate or control the activity which is against the law. India is not only the country facing the problem of corruption every growing or evolving nation in the present world faces complications regarding corruption practices prevailing in the nation. This problem was significantly neglected or ignored by the government at the starting point as they felt that these practices will not affect the nation in a threatening way but after reviewing and scrutinizing the corruption practices the government felt there should be policies, acts, regulations structured or designed in such a way so that it can curb the problem of corruption. So the government decided to frame or structure policies, acts, statutes, and norms that can considerably regulate this growing constraint. 

UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF CORRUPTION 

“Corruption” is described as “the unlawful use of governmental authority for private gain.” This abuse of power weakens a democracy by undermining trust between two or more parties. Additionally, corruption may exacerbate poverty and inequality while impeding a country’s ability to prosper economically. Understanding how corruption operates is crucial to exposing it and holding the dishonest accountable for establishing a corrupt system. The growth of the nation is badly impacted by its aftermath and acts as a hindrance toward the systematic and continuous progress of the nation.

HISTORY OF CORRUPTION IN INDIA 

We are natives of Gandhi’s country, for whom the essential tenets of life were honesty and nonviolence. I will use the 2000-year-old Vedic proverb “Satyam vadhadharmam charah” as an example. The motto of our country is Satyameva Jayate. Therefore, we all support honesty and truth, at least on a lip service level. Our government thinks that telling the truth will win, and all of our major faiths support this idea. However, India is one of the most corrupt nations in the world.

The actual degree of corruption in India is unknown. However, everyone is aware of how ubiquitous it is and how it is steadily eroding the nation’s foundation. There is little question that the future of democracy is in jeopardy if corruption, bribery, and nepotism are not stopped as soon as possible. The parallel is distressing to those of us who are aware of the high moral standards that prevailed before and shortly after India became an independent nation. We seek in vain the integrity, effectiveness, quality, and commitment to duty that once distinguished government. One starts to doubt whether we are the same people that rode to independence with the motto “truth and sacrifice.” A nation or society can improve its ability to reduce corruption to manageable levels by taking a comprehensive strategy and including all of the key players in the anti-corruption reform process. However, none of this can be dealt with without wise and tenacious political leadership. without substantial levels of public backing and knowledge, as well as without a driven and competent corporate sector. In many nations, creating a thriving wicked society that is willing and able to play a significant role in influencing its surroundings is the most challenging aspect of the equation.

REASONS FOR RISING CORRUPTION IN INDIA 

The corruption practices have been happening due to various reasons in the system of the nation. Therefore, mentioning and discussing a few of them will surely highlight the main reasons for corruption.

1. Low Pay Scale of Government Employees- At present in India, there is a sterling increase in the demand for government jobs due to the security of jobs its offers and other benefits it gives to its employees. Due to the huge population and growing population, there is expanding demand for government jobs as everyone cannot secure his place in the private sector. A person who tirelessly prepares for getting a government job in India and if he is selected, he does not see any financial gain or activity of efforts which he has undergone while preparing for his exam. He, therefore, chooses an unethical way to gain more money in less period. 
2. Lack of Accountability- A government employee is not responsible for reporting his duty or activity or any of the work carried out by him on a specific day. Therefore, he thinks that he is free to act in his way and not to abide by ethics or behaviour. It was after the passing of some acts legislations and statutes that brought the illegal practice of corruption under the surveillance of the government.
3. Lack of Stick and Fast Punishments- One of the most crucial features of the government job is that there is a lack of punishment which a government employee can get if he is involved in corruption. If he is involved in corruption investigation proceedings are undertaken against him which do not render any result and the employee is transferred from one place to another or merely there is suspended for a particular period. 
4. Greed and the Need of becoming rich overnight- One of the main reasons for growing corruption is the mindset of the people working in the government sector. The need and desire to become rich and successful is also a motivating factor in involving such type of heinous activity. 
5. Tolerance of corruption by the people- In the present world where everyone is busy carrying out his day-to-day activity in the best and most effective way no one wants that his time is wasted on any futile activity which does not render any financial gain. Therefore, when they visit any government office, they try to adopt corrupt practices to get their job done easily. 

EFFECTS OR CONSEQUENCES OF CORRUPTION 

1. Lack of quality of services- The quality of services drastically decreases if one is involved in corrupt practices as he does not put any effort from his side in rendering services and gives services in the easiest way possible which in turn decreases the quality of services that needs to be maintained by the government. 
2. Lack of proper justice- If corruption is taking place in any judicial department or any department which is authorized to provide give basic services to common people then it will affect a large portion of the society. 
3. Low rate of economic growth- The involvement of any government employee will surely affect the growth rate of the nation as it will put a halt to the flow of currency in the economy. There is a hoarding of money in the form of cash, assets, and in the form of stocks which directly plays a role of hindrance in the growth of economy of the nation.
4. Low Foreign Direct Investment- If corruption exists in the government sector foreign investor will hesitate to invest in the nation as they know that their funds or capital will not be utilized in the best and most effective manner. 

STEPS TAKEN BY THE GOVERNMENT TO CURB THE PRACTICES 

To codify all existing laws, eliminate corruption in government institutions, and prosecute and discipline public servants who commit corrupt activities, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (POCA)¹, was developed. It is a potent weapon against this evil. The success of the anti-corruption campaign depends on how well this legislation works. This Act gives the Central Government the power to appoint judges to look into and try instances involving offenses that are punished under the Act, as well as situations where an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense is made.

EVOLUTION OF THE ACT

The Indian Penal Code of 1860² first addressed cases of bribery and corruption involving public employees in the Indian Justice System. However, it became clear throughout the 1945s that the legislation in place at the time was inadequate to address the circumstances, and it was considered that special rules about bribery and corruption were to be established. As a result, the Prevention of Corruption Act, of 1947³, was impressively enacted. The Anti-Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act of 1964⁴ and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1952⁵, both of which were based on the Santhanam Committee’s recommendations, respectively, altered the 1947 Act twice.

As a result, the 1988 Prevention of Corruption Act, which became effective on September 9, 1988, was based on the 1947 Act. To make the whole resolution more feasible and eradicate corruption in Indian government offices and public sector organizations, it was intended to enhance the standards and widen the inclusion of anti-corruption laws. The Prevention of Corruption Act’s goal is to eradicate corruption throughout Indian government agencies and the public sector.

The extent of corruption in government organizations must be understood, but it’s also critical to prosecute and discipline public employees who take part in corrupt activities. The Act also takes into account individuals who helped the offenders commit the bribery or corruption offense.

AMENDMENTS IN ACT FOR BETTER WORKING 

Some of the amendments were done in the year 2013 and 2018 which was related to bribery and the period given to Special Judges (Section 4)⁶ for investigating the case.

2013’s Amendments 

1. Bribery was declared a criminal offense. A person who was forced to bribe will not be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act if they disclose the incident to law authorities within seven days.
2. The modified criminal misbehaviour law addressed two different sorts of offenses. Illegal enrichment, which is defined as accumulating money that is out of proportion to one’s sources of income, and fraudulent property misappropriation are the offenses.
3. The modifications were made with the pertinent government authority’s prior consent to undertake any inquiry into any offenses allegedly committed in public instances. However, if the criminal has already been detained for accepting bribes, then this authorization is not required.
4. If a special judge is handling the case, the PCA trial limit was set at two years. Only four years should be allowed for the trial’s overall duration.

2018’s Amendments

1. Bribery is a particular and explicit offense.
2. Anyone who accepts bribes faces a fine and a jail sentence of three to seven years.
3. Bribe-givers may additionally face a fine and a sentence of up to 7 years in jail.
4. In the case that the incident is reported to law enforcement within 7 days, the 2018 amendment adds a provision to safeguard persons who have been coerced to pay a bribe.
5. It redefines criminal behaviour to just include property theft and having an excessive amount of assets.
6. By requiring that investigative agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation obtain prior clearance from a competent authority before starting an inquiry into them, it proposes a “shield” to protect government employees, including those who have retired, from punishment.
7. However, it specifies that such authorizations are not required in situations when a person is immediately detained on suspicion of taking or attempting to accept an unfair benefit for himself or another person.
8. The concept of “undue advantage” must be proven in every case of corruption involving a public employee.
9. Within two years, the trial in instances involving the payment of bribes and corruption must be concluded. Furthermore, the trial cannot be longer than four years, even with justifiable delays.
10. It includes the potential for business organizations that provide bribes to face sanctions or legal action. However, they don’t apply to nonprofit organizations.
11. It outlines the authority and processes for seizing and forfeiting the property of a public official suspected of corruption.

PENALTY AFTER 2018 AMENDMENT 

The penalty for an infraction committed by a public employee has been increased under Sections 7⁷, 12⁸, and 14⁹ of the Amendment Act from a minimum penalty of 6 months to a minimum punishment of 3 years and from a maximum punishment of 5 years to 7 years, with or without fine. In situations of abetment, sentences also go longer.

When a crime is committed repeatedly, the penalty is increased from a minimum of 2 years to 5 years and a maximum of 7 years to 10 years in jail.

1. Corruption by Public Servant: The Prevention of Corruption Act of 2018’s¹⁰, Section 13 made reference to the misappropriation of assets and unfair justifications for doing so. It offered the justification for making a criminal misconduct accusation against the public employee.
2. Sanctions for Prosecution: According to the 2018 Prevention of Corruption Act¹¹, any prosecution of public employees must get the approval of the relevant government. Section 17A of the Amendment Act¹² expands the protection to include inquiries or investigations made before prosecution. Therefore, neither a police officer nor a former one may open an investigation into a public employee.

CONCLUSION 

One thing is abundantly clear from the above analysis: Corruption threatens not only the national or global economy but also the entire human race. Thousands of people and families in India are living in extreme poverty and are unable to access even the most basic necessities for survival. As a result, they are forced to bear the harsh consequences of corruption when they are unable to provide the required standard of service.

---

Endnotes:

1. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No 49 of 1988)
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No 45 of 1860)
3. Prevention of Corruption Act (Act No 2 0f 1947)
4. Anti-Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act of 1964
5. Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1952
6. Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
7. Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
8. Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
9. Section 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988
10. Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 (Act No 16 of 2018)
11. Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 (Act No 16 of 2018)
12. Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2018

This article is authored by Animesh Nagvanshi, a student at ICFAI University, Dehradun.

S.no	Contents
1.	Introduction
2.	Types of Cybercrime
3.	Financial Losses & Economic Impact
4.	Threat Towards ‘Digital India’
5.	Business Disruption
6.	Data Privacy is a Myth
7.	Effects of Cybercrime on Society
8.	How Laws Evolved around Cybercrimes in India
9.	Conclusion

Introduction

India has seen a substantial increase in cybercrime recently, posing a growing threat to both culture and economy. Cybercriminals have discovered new ways to take advantage of flaws and carry out their nefarious activities thanks to growing digitization and broad internet usage. Online harassment and cyberstalking are major issues that are becoming increasingly prevalent in today’s digital age. With the widespread use of the internet, type of abuse can have many forms, such as bullying, hate speech, stalking, and revenge porn, and it can cause devastating effects on someone’s life. The internet’s anonymity has made it easier for perpetrators to engage in abusive behaviour and law enforcement often struggles to keep up with the rapidly evolving landscape of online crime.

Cybercrime also puts India’s ambitious digital transformation projects in danger. Fear of cyberattacks may prevent individuals and companies from adopting digital technology, halting development and obstructing the potential advantages of a digital economy. Cybercrime also affects data security and violates privacy, with serious social repercussions. People become more susceptible to identity theft, fraud, and harassment, which undermines faith in online platforms and has an adverse effect on mental health. Due to the cross-border nature of cybercrime, it is challenging to identify and capture offenders, necessitating ongoing tool and skill enhancements for efficient investigations. In addition, the legal system encounters challenges when dealing with cybercrime matters, such as delays and the requirement for specialised knowledge, which impedes the administration of justice.

Types of Cybercrime

It is important to recognize that these crimes are not merely harmless pranks, but heinous criminal acts that have devastating consequences.

1. Online bullying- This involves the use of electronic communication to harass or intimidate someone.
2. Doxxing- This is the practice of publishing personal information, such as a person’s address or phone number, with the intent of causing harm.
3. Revenge porn- This involves the distribution of sexually explicit images or videos without the victim’s consent.
4. Trolling- This involves deliberately posting inflammatory or offensive comments online to provoke a reaction.
5. Cyberstalking- This is the persistent and unwanted pursuit or harassment of a person through electronic communication, such as emails, texts, and social media messages.
6. Impersonation- This involves creating a fake social media account or website to impersonate someone else.
7. Hacking- This involves gaining unauthorized access to a person’s computer or online accounts with the intent of stealing personal information or causing harm.
8. Salami Attack- Attackers or hackers frequently utilise the salami attack technique in order to perpetrate financial crimes online. One at a time, cybercriminals take resources or money from a system’s bank accounts. This attack happens when a number of weaker attacks combine to form a more powerful attack.
9. Script Kiddies- Script kiddie is a derogative term that computer hackers coined to refer to immature, but often just as dangerous, exploiters of internet security weaknesses.
10.  Cyber Laundering- Cyber laundering is when criminals use the internet to establish anonymity or non-traceability for laundering money. It happens in two ways- Instrumental Digital Laundering and Integral Digital Laundering.

Financial Losses & Economic Impact

This article would explore the vicious impact of cybercrime on the Indian economy, highlighting the challenges it poses and the measures required to address this growing concern.

• Intellectual Property Theft- The unauthorised use, exploitation, or outright theft of creative works, ideas, trade secrets, and confidential information is known as intellectual property (IP) theft and is otherwise protected by intellectual property laws. There are many different types of IP theft, such as trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and patent infringement. Cyber espionage poses a threat to Indian firms, particularly those operating in the technology and innovation industries. This reduces the value of research, innovation, and competitive advantage, diminishing these industries’ capacity for economic growth.

• Online Financial Frauds- Financial Fraud happens when someone deceives you and takes your money or any other kind of assets through illegal means. And when the usurper uses the cyberspace or Internet to conduct its fraudulent measures, it is called online fraud. Cybercriminals target people and steal money from their bank accounts using a variety of strategies, including phishing, identity theft, and credit card fraud. Individuals directly lose money as a result of these fraudulent operations, which undermines their trust in online transactions and electronic payment systems.

• Financial Sector Vulnerabilities- Due to the possibility of significant financial gain, the financial industry is a top target for cybercriminals. Attacks on financial institutions, such as banks, payment gateways, and stock exchanges, cause financial losses as well as a decline in public confidence in the banking system. This can undermine economic stability and hinder the flow of investments. These monetary losses have a huge cumulative impact. In India, the cost of cybercrime was predicted to reach over $4 billion per year in 2019 by the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER). This sum accounts for both the direct financial losses and the indirect expenses related to reducing the effects of cyberattacks.

• Ransomware Attack- In a ransomware attack, the user’s data, folders, or entire device is taken over by the attacker until a ‘ransom’ cost is paid. It is a form of malware from the crypto virology family that threatens to leak the victim’s private information or completely bar access to it if a ransom is not paid. More sophisticated malware employs a method termed cryptoviral extortion, whereas other simple ransomware may just lock the system without deleting any files.  By using phishing attacks or malicious websites to infect a PC or a network, ransomware attacks take advantage of unpatched security flaws. Though just simple ransom paying doesn’t ensure data recovery, and furthermore, the cost of data restoration can lead to more financial burdens.

• Data Breaches- Sensitive information about people and businesses has been compromised in a number of high-profile data breaches that have occurred in India. These violations have long-term effects in addition to acute pecuniary ones. Businesses may experience negative effects on their income and growth prospects due to legal repercussions, reputational harm, and a loss of customer trust.

Threat Towards ‘Digital India’

India has placed a lot of emphasis on digital transformation programmes to use technology for governance, e-commerce, online services, and financial inclusion. However, the advancement and effectiveness of these transformational endeavours are seriously threatened by cybercrime.

• Erosion of Consumer Confidence- Consumer trust in digital platforms, e-commerce, and online services is damaged by cyberattacks. Data breaches, financial fraud, and identity theft occur often, which raises questions about the security of personal and financial data. Consumer behaviour is impacted by the decline in trust, and people are less willing to deal online and divulge personal information. The advantages of digital transformation will not be fully realised without a strong digital ecosystem based on trust.
  
• Compliance & Regulatory Challenges- Regulation and legal frameworks that handle growing threats and safeguard digital transformation projects are needed to combat cybercrime. Effective cybersecurity legislation, data protection laws, and privacy standards must be developed and put into place. Regulating bodies face difficulties keeping up with the rapid growth of cyber threats and establishing a safe and favourable environment for digital transformation. This entails making substantial investments in cybersecurity defences, encouraging digital literacy and awareness, establishing public-private partnerships, and creating a cybersecurity culture within businesses.
  
• Service Disruption- Critical digital services may be interfered with by cyberattacks, putting users through inconvenience and irritation. For instance, a successful DDoS attack on online service platforms or government websites can make them inaccessible, preventing citizens from using vital services. Such interruptions jeopardise the dependability and accessibility of digital platforms, impeding the advancement of initiatives for digital transformation.

Business Disruption

The rise of cybercrimes in India can affect businesses and corporate institutes terribly. They can suffer from financial loss, software disruption, phishing and others.

• Financial Implications- Costs associated with recovering from a cyber-attack are substantial. To restore systems and secure data, businesses must spend money on incident response, forensics, and remediation activities. Furthermore, failure to appropriately protect customer data may have legal and regulatory repercussions, such as fines and penalties. Small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs), who may lack the means and knowledge to adequately address cyber risks, may find it particularly difficult to deal with these financial pressures.
• Business Resilience- The importance of solid business continuity and disaster recovery planning is highlighted by cyberattacks. Businesses must spend money on preventative measures to safeguard their vital infrastructure, create secure data backups, and establish incident response procedures. If these precautions are not taken, cyberattacks will continue to interrupt business operations and have a greater overall impact.
• Downtime and Loss of Productivity- Cyberattacks that cause considerable downtime to corporate activities include distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks and ransomware outbreaks. This downtime results in a loss of productivity and money. Even a small interruption can have a negative impact on supply chains, customer services, and overall operational effectiveness for firms that rely significantly on technology.

Data Privacy is a Myth

To commit, identity, theft and financial fraud, cyber criminals target personal data such as Adhaar or PAN numbers, bank account information, and credit card information. Various illegal activities, such as impersonation, loan fraud, and unauthorised financial transactions, can be committed using stolen identities. Individuals suffer financial losses as a result of these instances, which also reduce confidence in online services and transactions. Privacy and data protection laws are essential for protecting people’s personal information and holding companies accountable. However, regulatory and compliance structures are challenged by cybercrime. Cross-border operations are frequently involved in data breaches, making it challenging to identify and apprehend hackers. To properly address these issues, regulatory frameworks must be strengthened, data privacy laws must be improved, and international cooperation must be encouraged. Businesses in India run the danger of having their proprietary data, trade secrets, and consumer information compromised by data breaches. These hacks may be the result of business espionage to acquire a competitive edge or by hackers looking to make money by selling the stolen data. Financial losses, reputational harm, and a decline in customer trust are all effects. Individuals and companies need to prioritise cybersecurity measures in order to reduce privacy and data security breaches. Implementing robust authentication systems, encryption, and secure data storage procedures are all part of this. Individuals can be equipped to secure their personal information and recognise potential risks by encouraging digital literacy and awareness among them. Businesses should make substantial investments in cybersecurity infrastructure, carry out frequent security assessments, and follow data privacy laws.

Effects of Cybercrime on Society

Our web presence is constantly growing. Whether we buy food in-store or clothes online, every transaction leaves a digital trail that cybercriminals are always trying to exploit. Globally, there are now more cybercrimes due to increased internet usage. According to a National Crime Records Bureau of India report, from 2018 to 2020, there was an 84% increase in cybercrimes in India. Cybercrime affects both small businesses and huge organisations. The numerous negative repercussions of cybercrimes on society are explained in this article.

• Effects of Cybercrime on Infrastructure- Cyberterrorism is another serious danger to society. Millions of lives are at risk when cyberterrorists breach infrastructure-controlling systems like air traffic control. The risk of cyberterrorism increases with a country’s level of technological development. Healthcare websites are a target for cybercriminals. Sensitive information about patients and healthcare workers may be exposed. These online crimes can include denial-of-service attacks and malware. Cyberattacks on the healthcare sector could result in more than just monetary losses; they might also endanger the lives of patients.
• Effects of cybercrime on Businesses– Assume that when a customer purchases something online, an e-commerce company records their credit card information. Millions of people do business with this enormous company. Let’s imagine that at least 70% of their consumers use debit cards, credit cards, UPIs, digital wallets, etc. to make purchases. This indicates that the company has amassed a sizable online customer database. Hackers can gain access to internal systems if the organisation does not take the necessary precautions to secure and encrypt the sensitive financial information of its clients. Customers’ card information can be accessed, followed back to their bank accounts, and money was stolen. Many people may suffer financial losses as a result, which will produce a huge commotion in society.
• Effects on Individuals- Cyberbullying is the practice of using bogus information leak threats to extort online users. The effects of cybercrime extend beyond monetary damage, much like attacks on healthcare facilities. Victims may experience mental health issues like anxiety and depression, which can cause suicidal thoughts. Not only have our phones become smarter as a result of digitization. Smart homes are now possible thanks to artificial intelligence (AI) and the Internet of things (IoT), where you can turn on any device with a voice command. Your modern smart TV enables you to sign up for a variety of streaming services, but in the absence of a reliable security solution, it exposes your payment information to hacking.

How Laws Evolved around Cybercrimes in India

At first, there were no special provisions for cybercrimes in India. The Indian Judiciary added various aspects of cybercrimes in IPC through some landmark judgments like-

1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti^[1]: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the offense of hacking under Section 66 of the IT Act requires proof of mens rea or criminal intent.
2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India^[2]: In this case, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized the sending of offensive messages through communication services, as it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression.
3. K. Srinivas v. State of Karnataka: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the offense of cyberstalking under Section 354D of the IPC includes online stalking and harassment.
4. Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India^[3]: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the offense of publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form under Section 67 of the IT Act requires the intention to arouse sexual desire.

Also in,

1. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer^[4], the Supreme Court of India observed that the increase in cybercrime requires formulating new laws and strengthening existing ones to prevent and prosecute such crimes. The court also emphasized the need for awareness and education programs to inform citizens about the risks of cybercrime and how to protect themselves.
2. Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government of NCT of Delhi^[5], the Delhi High Court held that the prevention of cybercrime requires the development of technological solutions and the cooperation of law enforcement agencies and internet service providers.
3. K.M. Shareef v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court emphasized the need for strict punishment for cybercrime offenders to deter others from committing such crimes.

Through various Case Laws, the accountability for cybercrimes expanded-

1. State of Karnataka v. Sri Raghavendra S. Navalgund: In this case, the accused was found guilty of unauthorized access to a computer system and stealing confidential data. The court held that the offense of hacking under Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000 requires proof of criminal intent and dishonesty.
2. Avnish Bajaj v. State: In this case, the founder of a popular online marketplace was arrested for hosting objectionable content on his website. The court held that the intermediary protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 can be availed of only if the intermediary takes reasonable steps to remove or disable access to the objectionable content.
3. Sanjeev Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh: In this case, the accused was found guilty of creating a fake social media profile to defame a woman. The court held that the offense of defamation under Section 499 of the IPC also applies to online statements.
4. Ramkumar v. State of Tamil Nadu: In this case, the accused was found guilty of using a fake identity to stalk and harass a woman online. The court held that the offense of stalking under Section 354D of the IPC includes online stalking and harassment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Indian economy and society are significantly impacted by cybercrime. In terms of financial losses, business interruptions, dangers to digital transformation, breaches of privacy and data security, as well as difficulties with law enforcement and justice, it presents considerable hurdles. These effects have wide-ranging repercussions for people, corporations, and society at large. In addition to causing financial losses and identity theft, privacy and data security breaches also erode user confidence in online services, which has an effect on the entire digital ecosystem. Investigation, prosecution, and deterrence of cybercriminal activity are hampered by difficulties in law enforcement and justice, including jurisdictional complications, cybercriminals’ anonymity, and deficiencies in technical expertise.

---

Endnotes:

1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti, C No. 4680 of 2004
2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523; Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 OF 2012
3. Sabu Mathew George vs Union Of India And Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 229
4. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, 2014 10 SCC 473
5. Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1464

This article is authored by Dibyojit Mukherjee, a student at the Institute of Law, Nirma University.

-Report by Ankit Hinnariya

In a recent ruling, the High Court of Delhi granted anticipatory bail to Faheem Ahmed and Danish Khan, the petitioners in a case registered under Sections 323/354/354B/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Laxmi Nagar Police Station. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar, took into account the arguments presented by both the petitioners and the State. This article provides an overview of the case, the contentions raised by the parties involved, and the court’s decision.

Facts

The case at hand involves an FIR registered at Laxmi Nagar Police Station in Delhi under Sections 323/354/354B/376/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The FIR was lodged against Faheem Ahmed and Danish Khan, the petitioners, on the basis of allegations made by the complainant. The FIR accused the petitioners of offences including assault, molestation, and rape.

The initial PCR call made by the complainant on September 9, 2022, alleged molestation by the petitioners. The following day, another PCR call was made, claiming that the petitioners had threatened the complainant and intended to rape her along with their friends. 

Subsequently, at 2:04 PM on the same day, another PCR call reiterated these allegations.

It was only on September 26, 2022, when the written complaint was forwarded to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), that the allegations of rape were levelled against the petitioners. Prior to this, the charges primarily revolved around molestation.

The medical examination of the complainant conducted on September 9, 2022, did not reveal any signs of rape. The observations made by the doctor from Hedgewar Hospital suggested physical assault rather than rape.

On October 19, 2022, another PCR call was made by the complainant, alleging molestation once again by the petitioners.

These facts form the basis of the case, indicating the sequence of events leading to the filing of the FIR and the subsequent allegations against the petitioners. The court took into consideration these facts while evaluating the merits of the case and deciding on the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Petitioner’s Contention

In their petition for anticipatory bail, the petitioners, Faheem Ahmed and Danish Khan, presented several contentions to support their innocence and request protection from arrest. These contentions were put forth by their advocate, Ms. ParulAgarwal, during the court proceedings.

The petitioner argued that the allegations levelled against them in the FIR were false and frivolous. They claimed that there was an ongoing family dispute and various civil suits related to property matters, which might have prompted the filing of the FIR as an attempt to harm their reputation and grab their share of the property.

The petitioner highlighted inconsistencies in the statements of the complainant, specifically regarding the charges under Section 376 of the IPC (rape). They contended that the allegations of rape were added later, after the complainant’s statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), suggesting that these additional charges were an afterthought.

The petitioners’ counsel argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioners was unnecessary. They emphasized that the petitioners were willing to cooperate with the investigation and were ready to join it whenever required by the investigating officer. The petitioner further stated that no recovery was to bemade from the petitioners, indicating that their presence in custody was not warranted.

The petitioner asserted that there were no grounds to believe that the petitioners would abscond or tamper with evidence. They assured the court that their clients had no intention of evading the law and would actively participate in the proceedings.

These contentions were presented to establish the petitioners’ innocence and argue for the grant of anticipatory bail, ensuring their protection from arrest pending the investigation.

Respondent’s Contention

The respondents, represented by Mr. Amit Ahlawat, Assistant Public Prosecutor, He was accompanied by SI Sanyukta from the Laxmi Nagar Police Station. Additionally, Mr. Ankit Mehta, Mr. Varun Singh, and Mr. Sanjay Kumar served as advocates representing the second respondent in the case, and presented their contentions opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, Faheem Ahmed and Danish Khan.

The prosecution argued that the allegations against the petitioners were grave and serious in nature. They emphasized the severity of the charges under Sections 323/354/354B/376/34 of the IPC. The respondents contended that considering the seriousness of the offences, the petitioners should not be granted anticipatory bail.

The respondents highlighted that the complainant had submitted a detailed complaint to the police, providing a comprehensive account of the allegations made against the petitioners. They also pointed out that the complainant’s statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. further supported the charges brought against the petitioners.

The complainant opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The respondents argued that the complainant’s objection was based on the serious nature of the allegations and the need for a thorough investigation into the matter.

While the respondents focused on the gravity of the charges and the complainant’s detailed complaint, they did not contest the petitioners’ contention that custodial interrogation was unnecessary or that no recovery was to be made from the petitioners. Instead, their primary contention revolved around the seriousness of the allegations and the complainant’s opposition to the grant of anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT 

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar carefully considered the arguments presented and examined the facts of the case. The court noted that the initial PCR calls made by the complainant only alleged molestation and the charges of rape were added at a later stage. Additionally, the medical examination conducted on the complainant did not indicate signs of rape but suggested physical assault.

Referring to relevant judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Justice Bhatnagar emphasized that the severity of the accusations alone should not be the sole basis for denying anticipatory bail. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the importance of an individual’s liberty. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the court allowed the bail applications and ordered that if arrested, the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 each with one surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/SHO concerned.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3Bkc33a

-Report by Sava Vishnu Vardhan

In the case of Nagarathinam V. State Through The Inspector Of Police | Criminal Appeal No. 1389 Of 2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India overturned the order of the State of Tamil Nadu rejecting the request for the Appellant’s premature release in the case of murder. 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

Due to repeated threats from her spouse, Suresh, the mother, the appellant, chose to kill herself along with her children. She purchased pesticides intended for plants and, in accordance with her determination to pursue this line of action, she administered poison to her two children, Ramar and Laxmanan, who are identical twins. Then, the appellant’s niece pushed the pesticide down when she put it in a tumbler to drink it herself. Unfortunately, the two kids were pronounced dead when they got to the hospital. The appellant’s niece forced it down just as she was going to eat it herself.

Upon conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 309 of the IPC, Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul sentenced her to life in jail.

Following a trial, the appellant was found guilty of violating Sections 302 and 309 of the IPC by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul by Judgement and Order in Sessions Case No. 92 of 2004 dated 10.01.2005 and sentenced to life in jail. The Appellant requested an early release after serving nearly 20 years in jail. However, in light of the heinous and savage character of the offence (s) perpetrated by her, the State of Tamil Nadu rejected the State Level Committee’s proposal in G.O. (D) No. 1127, dated 24.09.2019.

APPELLANT‘S CONTENTIONS: 

Even if it is considered that the appellant attempted to poison herself and her children in order to end their lives, learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that this was only possible as a result of an unexpected provocation. Comes under IPC Section 300’s Exception 1. In addition, the fact that the appellant committed family suicide alongside her two boys is an extenuating circumstance protected by Section 300 of the IPC’s Exception 1. Additionally, if the mother had survived or managed to flee while the children perished, it would be illegal under Section 304 Part I of the IPC. In this regard, the Madras High Court’s learned Division Benches’ rulings in Guruswami Pillai v. State, 1991 (1) MWN (Cr.) 153 and Suyambukkani v. State, 1989 SCC OnLine Mad 481 were cited.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS: 

It was strongly maintained by knowledgeable counsel for the lone Respondent-State opposing the petitions that the act(s) perpetrated by the Appellant were cruel and violent as young children were given poison and put to death, hence it was only fair that the State had rejected the Appellant’s early release. It was argued that the High Court maintained the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC since both the Trial Court and the High Court carefully considered every aspect of the 6 issues.

JUDGEMENT:

The Judgement was delivered by Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. the hon’ble Supreme Courtdetermined that the scenarios presented by the appellant are not protected by the exceptions listed under Section 300 of the IPC given the facts and circumstances of the current instance. Even more so when the people who were fed the pesticide administered by the appellant and perished from it did not provide their consent. In Guruswami Pillai v. State of Madras, the father attempted suicide as well as killing his little daughter by slicing her throat with a knife. It was revealed during the trial that the father and daughter had decided to take their own lives together. Thus, the High Court in that case determined that it was prudent to provide a benefit by converting the conviction from Section 302, IPC to one under Section 304 Part I, IPC. This was done in light of the background information, as well as the parties’ mental and social conditions, financial situation, and the surrounding circumstances. The appellant has already endured the brutal hand of fate, according to the supreme court. The Court further pointed out that it can’t only be said that the act was “cruel and brutal” because the appellant tried to kill herself but was saved just in time by her niece. She had already served nearly 20 years in prison, to add to it. This prompted the Bench to overturn the government injunction and order her release.

The order of the State of Tamil Nadu, as stated in G.O. (D) No. 1127 dated 24.09.2019, issued by the Home (Prison-IV) Department and signed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, rejecting the request for the Appellant’s early release is reversed for the aforementioned reasons.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3BejUPP

-Report by Sejal Jethva

RITU TOMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS, in this case, the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for the quashing of the FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 307, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”).

FACTS

According to the prevailing tradition and practice, the marriage of the appellant’s sister, Ms. Rekha, the fourth respondent in this case, and the third respondent came to be solemnized on May 15, 2011, leading to its consummation and the birth of a baby girl who has since been given the name Tejal.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

According to the said Ms. Rekha, who claimed she had been expelled from the marital home, she filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was registered as V. No. 230 of 2014 and is currently pending on the file of the Principal Family Judge. As a result, an order was made on July 22, 2017, requiring the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 per month. Additionally, on March 15, 2017, she filed a police report (FIR) with the Harsh Vihar Police Station in North East Delhi for Crime No. 73 of 2017 against the third respondent and others for offences punishable by Sections 498A, 406/34 of the IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The jurisdictional police claimed to have started the inquiry based on the aforementioned FIR that was filed.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

When the aforementioned factual situation occurred, the third respondent filed an Application No. 41 of 2018 under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleging that the appellant and Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 had forcibly entered his home and attacked the complainant and his father with a knife on the applicant’s head with the intent to kill them when they refused to heed their demands to leave the village after selling the land and home. On the basis of the aforementioned complaint, which was brought before the Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gautam Budh Nagar, a report from the second respondent was requested; as a result, a report was submitted on March 11, 2018, opining that the accused parties, including the appellant, never visited the complainant’s home and that the incident in question had not occurred. However, the Learned Magistrate ordered the filing of a police report on May 3, 2018, and as a result, the second respondent filed a police report in Case Crime No. 55 of 2018 against the appellant and others for the violations listed above. As a result, a plea to nullify the aforementioned FIR was filed; however, when it was denied, the current appeal was submitted.

JUDGMENT

1. We have read the documents and listened to knowledgeable solicitors representing the parties. After giving the claim made by the appellant before the High Court careful consideration and repetition before this Court, we have concluded that the third respondent, who is the appellant’s sister’s husband and who had filed an application under Section 156(3) before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Gautam Budh Nagar in application No.41 of 2018, has unquestionably passed away while the current proceedings were pending. His name was consequently removed by order dated January 20, 2020. Regarding responses 1 and 2, none have surfaced.

2. Despite the aforementioned facts and the fact that a dispute between two families had already led to the wife filing two cases, which led to the registration of an FIR against the complainant (the third respondent here) and his family members, as well as the fact that none of the villagers, including the complainant’s neighbours, had supported or testified about the occurrence of any incident on January 26, 2018, as claimed by the complainant.

3. Therefore, insofar as the appellant is concerned, we quash the proceedings filed by the second respondent as Crime No.97 of 2018 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 307, 342, and 506 of the IPC. Therefore, the appeal is granted. 

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3mWmir2

-Report by Sejal Jethva

In the case of Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, the IPC’s Section 302 was used to punish the offence. A portion of the appeal is upheld.

FACTS

The appellant was a 22-year-old man. He emphasized the appellant’s young wife, young child, and elderly parents. He also has no priors and doesn’t pose a threat to society. Also, he has displayed consistently good behaviour while incarcerated, and he even finished a B.A. degree course while incarcerated. Last but not least, he emphasised that the appellant had served roughly seventeen years and two months of his sentence.

The Indian Criminal Code, 1860 (often referred to as the “IPC”) punishes the appellant for offences that fall within Sections 366, 376, and 302. The penalty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is the only issue under dispute. The appellant was given a life sentence of harsh imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court). To contest the verdict and sentence, the appellant chose to appeal to the High Court. The appeal for a longer sentence was preferred by the State Government. By the contested judgment, the High Court dismissed both appeals. This Court merely gave notice of sentences on April 21, 2017.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

Knowing the law established by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan & Ors.1, the learned solicitor representing the appellant-accused argued that only the Constitutional Courts, not the Sessions Courts, have the authority to impose a modified sentence. He argued that the Constitutional Courts can only commute an accused person’s death sentence if they also grant a life sentence, whether it be for all eternity or for a set amount of time. The courts have no authority to impose a different punishment if the death penalty is not applied. Additionally, he cited the court’s ruling in Swami Shraddananda alias Murali Manohar Mishra v. State of Karnataka.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

Even though the death penalty has not been imposed, the learned attorney representing the respondent-State contends that the Constitutional Courts are not helpless to impose modified sentences taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the behaviour of the accused, and other pertinent factors. He argued that the Constitutional Courts’ authority to provide a modified sentence could not be curtailed by claiming that they can only do so when the issue is whether to commute a death sentence. He argued that the most severe sentence was considered in this case’s facts by citing the Trial Court and High Court’s rulings. In any event, he argued, by imposing a sentence that would last the remainder of the appellant’s life, the High Court had, after taking into account all the relevant factual circumstances, reiterated the Sessions Court’s position.

JUDGEMENT

1. The facts are such that they will shock any court’s conscience. The deceased woman, who was happily married, worked for a reputable corporation with an office in Bengaluru’s Electronic City. She had to work till late at night or even early in the morning due to the nature of her job. Her transportation was previously provided by the employer in the form of a car. The business used to give staff automobiles to drive on various predetermined routes. The dead departed the workplace that fateful day at 2:00 a.m. in a car provided by the business. She previously rode in a car that travelled Route 131. She was told by the appellant, the driver, that day that the vehicle used for route 131 was not available. She was informed by the appellant that she would have to use his vehicle, which is on Route 405 to get there. Therefore, the deceased sat down in the car that the accused was operating. The deceased’s maternal uncle filed a complaint and claimed that the person was missing. Finally, at the appellant’s request, her deceased body was found. The deceased’s clothing, shoes, and other personal effects were discovered close to the body. The charge of both the offence under Section 366 of the IPC and the offence under Section 376 of the IPC was successfully established by the prosecution. Additionally, the appellant-accused was found guilty of the crime under Section 302. The victim, who was 28 years old, had his life brutally taken from him.

2. In light of this, we change the Trial Court’s original sentence for the offence covered by Section 302 of the IPC. We order that the appellant be sentenced to life in prison. Additionally, we order that the appellant not be freed until he has served his full 30-year sentence. The appeal is partially upheld to the extent stated above.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3TX7kwV

–Report by Radhika Mitta

This is a case summary of an application for anticipatory bail in FIR No. 512/2022 under Sections 307/498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), registered at PS Ranhola, New Delhi.

FACTS:

The incident involved a lady who fell from the roof of her matrimonial house and sustained grievous injuries. She alleged that she was taunted, beaten, and threatened for dowry and was restrained from communicating or meeting with her parents and husband. The victim accused the present applicant, Ms. Mamta (mother-in-law), along with other accused persons of dragging her to the terrace and pushing her from there. During the course of the investigation, the statement of an eyewitness was recorded, who initially stated that the complainant herself jumped from the roof but later retracted her statement. The complainant admitted to communicating with her mother, brother, and husband through the phone of the present applicant’s son and his wife. The complainant’s father and brother-in-law also visited her matrimonial house and witnessed her being abused and misbehaved with at the hands of the present applicant and his family. The present applicant was not found at her expected address during the investigation as she was undergoing treatment at a hospital. A chargesheet was filed, and the anticipatory bail application of the present applicant was dismissed. A non-bailable warrant was issued against the present applicant by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:

The contentions of the plaintiff/complainant are not explicitly stated in the given case summary. However, it can be inferred that the complainant had filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the applicant (present respondent) and had made serious allegations against her, including allegations of cruelty and harassment at her matrimonial home.

DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The learned counsel for the applicant (present respondent) argued that the allegations made in the FIR were false and that no specific allegations had been made against the applicant. The counsel also submitted that the complainant had jumped from the terrace of her matrimonial home and that an eyewitness had corroborated this fact. The counsel further urged that the applicant was an old woman with health issues and required frequent medical attention. The defence counsel argued that no material had been placed on record to substantiate the prosecution’s claim that the applicant posed a threat to the complainant or could tamper with evidence.

JUDGEMENT:

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of her arrest in connection with the present FIR, the applicant is directed to be released forthwith, upon her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) along with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer. In case it is established that the applicant tried to tamper with the evidence, the bail granted to the applicant shall stand cancelled forthwith.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3TnmMSG

S.no	Contents
1.	Introduction
2.	Judicial and Executive acts: A General Exception under IPC
3.	Judicial acts as an exception
4.	Executive acts as a general exception
5.	Analysis regarding the judicial and executive acts
6.	Issues
7.	Suggestions
8.	Importance and need in the present scenario
9.	Conclusion

Introduction

The Indian Penal Code (IPC)^[1] contains several provisions that serve as general exceptions to criminal liability. These provisions exempt certain actions from being considered crimes under certain circumstances.

For example, Section 76^[2] provides that acts done by a person who is bound by law to do them are not crimes, while Section 80 provides that an act done in good faith for the benefit of a person without their consent is not a crime if it would otherwise have been so. Section 81 provides that an act done by several persons to further a common intention is not a crime if done in good faith for the advancement of religion, science, literature, or fine arts. The general exceptions under IPC are meant to provide a reasonable balance between the protection of individual rights and the public interest.

Judicial and Executive acts: A General Exception under IPC

Section 197 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides a general exception for acts performed by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties, or by any person acting under the direction of a public servant if such act is done in good faith. This means that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against such individuals unless prior sanction is obtained from the appropriate authority. This provision is intended to protect public servants from baseless lawsuits and ensure that they are able to perform their duties without fear of legal harassment.

Judicial acts as an exception

The judicial act exception under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a provision in Section 197 of the code that exempts public servants and persons acting under the direction of a public servant from criminal liability for acts performed in good faith in the discharge of their official duties. This provision applies to acts performed by judges, magistrates, and other public servants in the course of their official duties and provides immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken in good faith in the performance of such duties. The purpose of this exception is to ensure that public servants are able to perform their duties without fear of being sued for criminal offences and to prevent frivolous or malicious lawsuits from being filed against them. However, prior sanction from the appropriate authority is required before criminal proceedings can be initiated against a public servant under this exception.

Case Laws that give us a vivid idea regarding the prevailing exceptions

There are several case laws that have interpreted and applied the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Some of the notable cases include:

R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu^[3]: In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC applies only to acts performed in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial powers and does not extend to acts performed in an administrative capacity.

State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Dattatraya Apar^[4]: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC applies only to acts performed by public servants in good faith and within the scope of their official duties and not to acts of omission or commission that are mala fide or beyond the scope of their official duties.

K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu^[5]: This case dealt with the issue of whether the prior sanction was required before a public servant could be prosecuted for an act performed in the discharge of his official duties. The Supreme Court held that prior sanction was required before the prosecution could be initiated against a public servant under the judicial act exception in Section 197 of the IPC.

These cases provide guidance on the scope and application of the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC and have helped to clarify the rights and obligations of public servants in the performance of their official duties.

Executive acts as a general exception and what makes it different from judicial acts

The executive act exception under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a provision in Section 197 of the code that exempts public servants and persons acting under the direction of a public servant from criminal liability for acts performed in good faith in the discharge of their official duties. This provision applies to acts performed by executive officials, such as government employees and officers, in the course of their official duties and provides immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken in good faith in the performance of such duties. The purpose of this exception is to ensure that public servants are able to perform their duties without fear of being sued for criminal offences and to prevent frivolous or malicious lawsuits from being filed against them. However, prior sanction from the appropriate authority is required before criminal proceedings can be initiated against a public servant under this exception.

Analysis regarding the judicial and executive acts

The judicial act exception under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) serves an important role in protecting public servants, including judges and magistrates, from frivolous or malicious lawsuits arising from actions taken in good faith in the discharge of their official duties. This exception helps to ensure that public servants can carry out their duties without fear of legal harassment, which is essential for the effective functioning of the justice system.

However, the scope and application of the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC have been the subject of debate and legal interpretation in several cases. Some critics argue that this exception provides too much protection for public servants, allowing them to escape accountability for actions that may have been taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties.

Issues

The scope and application of the judicial act exception under Section 197^[6] of the IPC have been the subject of legal interpretation in several cases, with some critics arguing that this exception provides too much protection for public servants and allows them to escape accountability for actions taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties.

For example, the Supreme Court of India has held that the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC applies only to acts performed by a judge in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions, and does not cover acts performed in administrative or executive capacities. This interpretation helps to ensure that public servants are not immune from prosecution for acts taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties.

Another issue with the judicial act exception under Section 197^[7] of the IPC is that it requires prior sanction from the appropriate authority before criminal proceedings can be initiated against a public servant. In some cases, this requirement has been criticized for being too burdensome, as it can result in delays in prosecuting public servants for criminal offences.

Suggestions regarding the judicial and executive act exceptions of IPC

One suggestion to address these concerns could be to clarify the definition of “good faith” under Section 197 of the IPC so that it better captures the essence of what constitutes an act performed in good faith. This could help to ensure that public servants are not immune from prosecution for acts of bad faith or malicious intent.

Another suggestion could be to provide a mechanism for the review of decisions regarding prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the IPC so that individuals who believe that they have been wrongly denied the right to prosecute a public servant can have their case heard and reviewed.

Overall, it is important to strike a balance between protecting public servants from baseless lawsuits and ensuring accountability for actions taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties. A careful review and re-evaluation of the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC, along with the suggestions outlined above, could help to achieve this balance.

Importance and need in the present scenario

The judicial and executive act exceptions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) serve an important function in protecting public servants from baseless or malicious lawsuits arising from actions taken in good faith in the discharge of their official duties. These exceptions ensure that public servants can perform their duties without fear of legal harassment, which is essential for the effective functioning of the justice system and the administration of government.

However, the scope and application of these exceptions have been the subject of debate and legal interpretation in several cases, with some critics arguing that they provide too much protection for public servants and allow them to escape accountability for actions taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties.

To address these concerns, suggestions have been made to clarify the definition of “good faith” under Section 197 of the IPC and to provide for a mechanism for review of decisions regarding prior sanction for prosecution. A careful review and re-evaluation of the judicial and executive act exceptions under Section 197 of the IPC could help to strike a balance between protecting public servants from baseless lawsuits and ensuring accountability for actions taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties.

Conclusion

In summary, the judicial and executive act exceptions under the IPC play a crucial role in the functioning of the justice system and the administration of government, but it is essential to ensure that they are applied in a manner that balances the protection of public servants and the need for accountability. The judicial act exception under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is an important provision that provides immunity from criminal prosecution for public servants, including judges and magistrates, for acts performed in good faith in the discharge of their official duties. This exception is intended to protect public servants from frivolous or malicious lawsuits, which could have a chilling effect on the administration of justice.

To address these concerns, some have suggested that the definition of “good faith” under Section 197 of the IPC be clarified so that it better captures the essence of what constitutes an act performed in good faith. Additionally, a mechanism for review of decisions regarding prior sanction for the prosecution could be established, to ensure that individuals who believe that they have been wrongly denied the right to prosecute a public servant have their case heard and reviewed.

In conclusion, while the judicial act exception under the IPC serves an important function in protecting public servants from baseless or malicious lawsuits, it is important to ensure that it is applied in a manner that balances the protection of public servants and the need for accountability. A careful review and re-evaluation of the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC, along with appropriate reforms and clarifications, could help to achieve this balance.

---

Endnotes:

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Act no. 45 of 1860
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 76, Act no. 45 of 1860
3. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 SCC (6) 632
4. State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Dattatraya Apar, (1981) 83 BOMLR 553
5. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1996 SCC (2) 226
6. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 197, Act no. 45 of 1860
7. Ibid

This article is written by Prashant Prasad, a second-year law student from University Law College.

This case analysis is authored by Prashant Prasad, a second-year law student from University Law College.

Case No.

Appeal (crl.) 1207 of 1997

Equivalent Citation

AIR 1998 SC 2120

Date of Judgment

17/04/1998

Court

The Supreme Court of India

Bench

S.C. Agrawal, G.N. Ray, A.S. Anand, S.P. Bharucha, S. Rajendra Babu

Facts of the Case 

During the 10th Lok Sabha election which was held in the year 1991, the congress party was the leading party and subsequently, it formed the government with P.V. Narasimha Rao as a Prime Minister. However, everything was going well in the party unless during the monsoon session of Lok Sabha in July 1993 a ‘No Confidence Motion’ was moved against the existing government of P.V. Narasimha Rao. Now, the party was in minority so they gave bribes to a few members of JMM (Jharkhand Mukti Morcha) and urge them to vote against the motion. The party somehow managed to defeat the motion with 251 members voting in the favor of the motion and 265 voting against the motion. 

After the motion got defeated the party once again came into power. But on February 28, 1996, a person named Shri Ravindra Kumar of Rashtriya Mukti Morcha filed a complaint with the CBI wherein it was alleged that some members of parliament were bribed during the no-confidence motion in Lok Sabha in July 1993. The CBI based on information received registered a complaint under Section 13(2)^[1], Section 13(1) (d) (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act^[2] against the Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi, and Shallendra Mahto, members of JMM. In short, a criminal prosecution was launched against the bribe-taking and bribes giving members of the Parliament under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988^[3] and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code^[4]. The cognizance was taken by the special Jude Delhi, the person who sought to be charged as aforesaid, filed a petition in Delhi High Court seeking to quash the charge the High court dismissed the petition. Therefore an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of India and then referred to the constitutional bench. 

Issues of the case 

1. Whether under Articles 105(1) and 105(2), a member of parliament can claim immunity from prosecution before a criminal court on a charge of bribery concerning the proceeding of the parliament.
2. Is a member of parliament a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, of 1988?

Rationale 

Arguments from the Appellant’s side:

• The counsel from the appellant’s side argued that the immunity under Article 105(2)^[5] must be taken into wide sense so that the members of the parliament can exercise their right to vote without any kind of fear.
• It was further contended by the appellant’s side that offers and acceptance of a bribe do not amount to a criminal offense either under the Indian Penal Code^[6] or under the Prevention of Corruption Act^[7].
• Also, neither charge of conspiracy under section 120-B of IPC^[8] nor any offense mentioned under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 evokes against them. 

Arguments from the State headed by the Attorney General:

• The attorney general argued that there are no sets of rules or laws that say whether these particular things fall under the purview of Parliamentary Privileges or not which are being enjoyed by the members of the parliament. This argument relied on the judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in Brewster^[9]. The acceptance of bribes by the members is a breach of the privileges.
• Along with this many contentions were put forward from both sides which form the basis of the case.

Judgment 

The Five Judge bench split their verdict in the ratio of 3:2; the court has taken judgment based on articles 105(1) and 105(2) in literal interpretation. The court of law increased the scope of these articles and held that the members are immune from any kind of proceedings against them in respect of any vote in the parliament. In this particular case, members who have given the bribe did not enjoy immunity from prosecution. The court further held that based on the literal interpretation of the Articles under question the JMM members who have taken the bribe and voted against the motion are not guilty of corruption. But one member who has taken the bribe but did not vote was held guilty of prosecution.

P.V. Narasimha Rao was acquitted of all charges in the JMM bribery case. The judgment was delivered by a special court in Delhi, India, which found that there was insufficient evidence to support the charges against Rao and others. The judgment was a significant one, as it marked the first time that a former Prime Minister of India was acquitted in a corruption case. The case was widely watched and had a major impact on Indian politics, with many people viewing it as a test of the Indian judiciary’s independence and its ability to deal with high-profile corruption cases. The verdict in the JMM bribery case was seen as a victory for P.V. Narasimha Rao and his supporters, who had argued that the charges against him were politically motivated and aimed at tarnishing his legacy as one of India’s most transformative Prime Ministers. Despite his acquittal, the case remains a matter of public record and continues to be discussed and debated in the Indian media and political circles.

Implications for parliamentary privileges in India regarding this case

The JMM bribery case had important implications for parliamentary privileges in India. Parliamentary privileges are certain rights and immunities that are granted to members of Parliament to enable them to carry out their duties effectively. One of the key privileges is immunity from criminal prosecution for words spoken or acts done in the course of parliamentary proceedings. In the JMM bribery case, some of the accused, who were members of Parliament at the time, claimed that the charges against them were covered by parliamentary privilege and that they could not be prosecuted for bribery and corruption. This argument was rejected by the court, which held that the charges against the accused related to acts that were not covered by parliamentary privilege.

The JMM bribery case, therefore, clarified the scope of parliamentary privilege in India and established that members of Parliament are not immune from prosecution for criminal offenses, including bribery and corruption that are committed outside of parliamentary proceedings. The case was seen as a positive development for accountability and transparency in Indian politics, as it demonstrated that public officials, including members of Parliament, can be held accountable for their actions. The verdict in the JMM bribery case reinforced the principle that no one is above the law and that all citizens, regardless of their status or position, must be subject to the same legal standards and procedures.

Conclusion 

The conclusion of the case marked the end of a long and contentious legal battle that had far-reaching consequences for Indian politics. The case was widely watched and was seen as a test of the independence of the Indian judiciary and its ability to deal with high-profile corruption cases. While the verdict was seen as a victory for P.V. Narasimha Rao and his supporters, the case continues to be a matter of public record and remains a source of discussion and debate in India. The JMM bribery case serves as a reminder of the importance of ensuring the transparency and accountability of public officials, and the role that the judiciary can play in upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of citizens.

---

References:

1. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(2), Act No. 49 of 1988
2. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Act No. 49 of 1988
3. Ibid
4. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Act No. 45 of 1860
5. INDIA CONST, art. 105(2)
6. Supra note iv
7. Supra note ii
8. Indian Penal Code, 1860, section 120-B, Act No. 45 of 1860
9. United State v. Brewster, 33 L Ed 507

S.no	Contents
1.	Introduction
2.	How crime is defined by society?
3.	Analysis of crimes against the society
4.	Recent developments
5.	Conclusion

Introduction

A crime committed against society at large that puts society’s safety at risk is known as public tranquillity or offense against society. It is not necessary that an actual offence is committed towards society, even an apprehension is created in the mind of the public at large or society, even if an apprehension is created in the mind of the public at large or the society that they are under the threat of an offense or an action by any person would result in an injury to them is necessary enough to constitute to an offense against the society. These offenses are usually committed by individuals in a group with a common object to hamper the peace of society. 

How crime is defined by society?

The word society has been derived from the Latin word ‘ socius meaning association. Therefore, a society can be defined as an ‘association of people or people in a group who are related to each other by means of some common traits. While governing a society, the interests of the people are taken at large rather than depending on the needs and wants of one single person. The requirement of the people at large is considered. Different Legislations are not passed for different individuals, for one single society common legislation is applicable to them. A committed is defined as a crime only when it is wrong in the eyes of society. 

If a particular act is not opposed by a group of people, then it can never be considered an offense. For example, trespass, money laundering, and bribery these acts wouldn’t be a crime if it was not wrong in the eyes of society. Therefore, what society thinks is important in defining a crime.

The foundation of a society lies in the maintenance of peace and morals. Therefore, chapter 8 of IPC has been framed to deal with those actions which would put society’s peace at risk. The offenses which put public safety at risk can be classified into rioting, unlawful assembly, affray, assembly of five or more people in a situation where dispersion has been ordered and promotion of enmity between different classes of people.

Analysis of crimes against the society

Section 141- unlawful assembly: Every person has the fundamental right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(b). However, certain circumstances given under section 141 of the IPC lead to unlawful assembly and it is considered a criminal offense. Any assembly which has been formed with 5 or more people with the intention to commit an unlawful offense is called an unlawful assembly. People in groups with a common intention and object to gather unlawfully and create a threat to the public peace is always dangerous. This is the main reason why unlawful assembly is criminalized. When an assembly gathered lawfully turns out to be aggressive and indulges in unlawful means, it will come under the purview of section 141 of IPC. The instances where there is a shift from lawful assembly to unlawful assembly is when the object of the assembly changes to resist legal proceedings, using criminal force against the state or any public servant, to committing trespass or mischief of the property of any person, to using criminal force against a person to make him do something against the law. 

In the case P.S. Kirubakaran v. Commr. of Police, Vepery (2021)[1], In this case, a group of advocates indulged in certain criminal activities like forcibly getting possession of certain properties, destruction of properties, etc., and therefore they caused the interruption in the peace of the society. The court charged them with the offense of unlawful assembly and took measures to curb such practices.

In the case of Amrika Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019).[2], dealing with the offense of unlawful assembly and the scope of section 141 of IPC was analysed. In this case, the cattle of the deceased jumped on the door of the appellant as a result exchange of words took place and the appellant started abusing the deceased after which an attack by a group of people took place, and eventually the deceased died. The appellant also sustained injuries during the attack and challenged before the court that he was unarmed during the attack and therefore he is not a part of the unlawful assembly. The court acquitted the accused.

 Merely a person being part of an assembly that has indulged in an unlawful act is not enough, it is also necessary that at the time of the commission of the act, the people indulged also had the same object. Therefore, in the present times, section 149 is one of the most misused sections as it is difficult to interpret every person’s object in an assembly and there are chances of misrepresentations where an innocent person would be charged with a crime.

Section 146- Rioting: Rioting is dealt with under sections 146 and 147 of the IPC. Riot is similar to that unlawful assembly, and the only difference is the term violence. If an unlawful assembly starts to get engaged in any violent act, it will be known as a riot. Therefore, the ingredients of rioting are the same as that of unlawful assembly which is a common intention. Engaging in violence is always a threat to the harmony of society. It will affect the co-existence of society. . Rioting Is committed as a means to show the group’s intention to oppose the policies of the government, the outcome of any legislation passed or a judgment made, etc. Under most circumstances, grave and sudden provocation lead to riots. An act done in sudden provocation is considered a defense under IPC. But the impact of this act is so huge as it can even cause disintegration and heavy losses and damages.

In the case Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. State of Gujarat (2019)[3], the appellant was a victim of gang rape that occurred during a riot in the year 2002 which came to be known as godhara train incident. She also lost her family during the attack. The Supreme Court in this case gave a compensation of 50 lakhs to the appellant under section 147 of IPC who was surviving with a daughter deprived of basic necessities of life such as food, shelter, etc. 

Affray: Affray is usually committed by 2 or more people when they fight in public which disrupts the peace of society. The offense is committed in such a manner that there must be some sort of disturbance to the public arising out of the actions of the people engaging in the fight. For example, If one person comes and attacks another person by knocking him down in a private place, it does not amount to affray as there is no chance of the act disrupting the peace of the society. Punishment for the offense of affray is imprisonment of one month or fine or both. Punishment is less compared to rioting and unlawful assembly only because of the fact that the impact caused by the offense of affray is much less.

Section 153- Promoting enmity between classes. The outcome of a clash between different communities of society is huge. Thus, the need to criminalize the act of causing enmity was considered, and causing enmity between people belonging to different classes or different sections of society based on class, sex, religion, language, place of birth, etc. is considered a criminal offense. This section is wide in nature and consists of those offenses like moral corruption. The validity of this section has been challenged overtime on the basis that it is a violation of Article 19(1)(a) as it restricts freedom of speech and expression for any statement made which can create an enmity between communities. But the validity of this section was still upheld considering the fact that creating disruption among communities can lead to a threat to the country’s national security and sovereignty. Every person has the right to express their opinions through any means but there are certain restrictions laid down under article 19(1)(f) and promoting enmity is one such restriction.

In the case Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya & Ors. (2021)[4], In this case, the appellant through the means of the social media platform ‘Facebook’ posted writing representing the non-tribal group of Meghalaya, and therefore, he was charged under section 153A of the IPC. The court in this case analyzed section 153A of IPC and held that the main intention behind this section is to prevent any sort of act which would disrupt public harmony and create a threat to the nation’s sovereignty or national security. The appellant didn’t have any motive to create disturbances among communities by publishing the statement and it was just pleading for equality. 

The concept of good faith plays an integral role to define the offense of promoting enmity. Actions that are done in good faith without a wrongful intention are always a defense.

Vinod Dua V. Union of India & Ors. (2020)[5], In this case, the petitioner filed for a writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution. The petitioner was accused of creating a disturbance in society by making malicious statements against the prime minister and the government through his youtube channel for providing false information regarding PPE kits to the public. The Supreme court in this case held that the statement made by the petitioner was just a disagreement against the policies of the government and that won’t cause any disturbance to the peace of the society.

In the case Bijumon v. State of Kerala (2018).[6], In this case, the accused was charged under section 153A for publishing wrong information regarding a communal war between Christians and Muslims. The petition for anticipatory bail from the side of the accused was dismissed by the court as a such publication can result in putting the public peace in danger.

Recent developments

The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) by the Uniform crime reporting program, each offense reported where classified into offenses against persons, offenses against property, and offenses against society. Offenses against society are basically victimless offenses that put the safety of society at risk. Some offenses classified as offenses against society in the alphabetic order are animal cruelty, drug violations, gambling offenses such as betting or wagering, offenses under pornography or obscene material, prostitution offenses, weapon law violations, intoxication such as drunk and drive, family offenses, and trespass of real property. 

In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High court denied a bail application of a baba who was accused of raping a minor girl and stated that ‘rape is not just a crime against an individual it is a crime against society.’ Sexual assault against a girl would result in inducing trauma in the mind of any girl belonging to that society, not just the victim. The impact of the offense is something that must be overlooked. If the impact of an offense is on one single person it cannot be a crime against society. If a person is stabbed by his colleague during an argument it can never be a crime against society as the impact of the crime is on the victim only. But when the person has been murdered in a heinous manner, this creates a situation of fear in the minds of the people in the society too. The impact is not just on the victim or the family of the victim. It is collective in nature.

Similarly, a bench of Justices S A Nazeer and V Ramasubramanian made the observation that the practice of corruption by a public servant is an offense against the state or the society, and such cases cannot be dealt with under the suit of specific performances. The offense of corruption is of the nature that people in the society as a whole will start losing their trust in the government and other officials, as well as the rich or privileged section, would get an upper hand in the society. This might lead to the disintegration of the nation and society. Therefore, the impact is huge.

Conclusion

The public or society is considered the core of the country’s democracy, Therefore, any offense which is committed against an individual does not come under the purview of the chapter of IPC but it can disrupt public peace and is categorized as an offense against society. During the pandemic, there was a steady increase in the number of cases against society, especially through social media. A lot of wrong information about the spreading of covid 19 government policies was spread across the nation creating a situation that made society to be panic.

Along with the legislation and the laws brought in to tackle the offenses against society, the judgments passed in various cases are also an essential means to maintain public peace.

---

References:

1. P.S. Kirubakaran v. Commr. of Police., SCC OnLine Mad 508.
2. Amrika Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh., (2019) 4 SCC 620.
3. Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. State of Gujarat., (2020) 13 SCC 733.
4. Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 258.
5. Vinod Dua v. Union of India & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1209.
6. Bijumon v. State of Kerala., 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 11481.
7. Press Trust of India, Rape is a crime against society, not just an individual: HC, The Times of India (Jan 03, 2023, 11:50 IST), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/allahabad/rape-a-crime-against-society-not-just-an-individual-hc/articleshow/85875192.cms

This article is written by Vishal Menon, from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.