Asif Faruk Kadawala v. State
In the High Court of Karnataka
Crl.P. 5672/2020
Before Justice H.P. Sandesh
Decided on April 20, 2021

Relevancy of the Case: Presenting evidence in court proceedings is equivalent to publication

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66C, 66E)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 354B, 354D, 506, 376, 447, 354,)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 482)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The accused trespassed the victim’s house and snatched her phone. When she demanded it back, he assaulted and raped her. He also sent her personal photos to her friends and relatives. Moreover, he used her mobile banking application to transfer ₹61,000 to his account.
• Further, he hacked the victim’s phone with his laptop and misused her personal data including the photos. He further used the same as evidence in a domestic violence case.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 66E is not applicable. Moreover, the petitioner only used photos as evidence in court proceedings, and he did not publish them elsewhere.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that pleadings in a court of law are equivalent to publication, as per Dr Joy Anto v. C.R. Jaison.
• The respondent’s counsel further argued that the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petitioner has not disputed that he took pictures.

Opinion of the Bench

• Section 66E and Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 are applicable in the present case.
• Once a statement is made in court, it is considered published. Thus, the photos used as evidence will be considered to be published as per Section 66E.

Final Decision

• The bench rejected the petition.

Marc Pereira, an undergraduate student at Rizvi Law College, Mumbai, prepared this case summary during his internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2022.