Ramesh Rajagopal v. Devi Polymers Private Limited
(2016) 6 SCC 310
In the Supreme Court of India
Crl. A. 133/2016
Before Justice S.A. Bobde and Justice Amitava Roy
Decided on April 19, 2016

Relevancy of the case: Authority of a company’s director to access and edit company website.

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 43, 65, 66)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 409, 468, 471, 120-B)
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Section 482)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• Appellant is a director in Devi Polymers Private Limited, Chennai. The company has three units A, B and C. Appellant is the head of unit C which renders consultancy services.
• For improving Consultancy Services, the appellant contacted consultant Michael T. Jackson along with few other consultants of the company. Taking the consultants‘ suggestions, he created a webpage named Devi Consultancy Services.
• Respondent initiated the instant criminal complaint against the appellant. The main base of this complaint was that the website for Devi Consultancy Services is shown as a separate division, independent of Devi Polymers Private Limited. This resulted in forgery since there is no such thing as Devi Consultancy Services, though, the existence of unit C of Devi Polymers Private Limited is not denied.
• The High Court dismissed the petition under section 482 of CrPC on the ground that it requires evidence at trial to come to any conclusion.

Opinion of the Bench

• None of the facts can lead to the inference of commission of an offence under the IPC. Further, as the website is concerned, Devi Consultancy Services (DCS) is mentioned. However, there is clarity that it is a party of Devi Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Hence, it is impossible to view this act as an act of forgery.
• The appellant had the authority to access the company’s computer network; hence, he committed no offence per Section 66 r/w Section 43 of the ITA, 2000. Further, since there is no allegation of computer source code concealment, destruction or alteration, there is no case under Sections 65 and 66 of the Act.

Final Decision

• The bench allowed the Appeal to succeed and quashed the prosecution.

इस केस के सारांश को हिंदी में पढ़ने के लिए यहाँ क्लिक करें | To read this case summary in Hindi, click here.