TP Shivadas FCS v. State of Kerala
In the Kerala High Court
BA 4889/2015,  5035/2015, and 5859/2015
Before Justice A. Hari Prasad
Decided on November 12, 2015

Relevancy of the case: Whether barging in and stealing a company’s personal data is bailable.

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 43, 66)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 156(3), 438)
•  The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 34, 323, 392, 408, 420, 427, 452, 465, 467, 468, 506(ii))
• The Companies Act 2013 (Section 153)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The bench heard three petitions heard collectively. Further, the petitioners are the accused in the cases.
• In the first case, two of the accused forged the seal of the consulate in Dubai and the vice consul’s signature during the election of the company’s directors. Consequently, they siphoned funds from the company. Furthermore, they falsely create proxies in the election of directors.
• In the second case, the same accused had the intention to cheat the defacto complainant, the Chairman of a company by the name Aswini Hospital Ltd., and other shareholders. They forged the digital signature of the defacto complainant. Subsequently, they used the signature to upload certain forms on the website of the Registrar of Companies.
• In a third case, the accused barged in and subsequently destroyed the property in the complainant’s company building. Furthermore, they attacked the complainant and had stolen the company’s personal documents.
• The prosecution believed that the first case involved anti-national activities. Therefore, the graveness of the crimes must be considered.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel contended that the majority of the directors, including the complainant, concealed their foreign residence identities and falsely applied for Director Identification Number. Consequently, they were to be fired. Hence, the complainant falsely filed the case in a fit of anger against the accused.
• The respondent’s counsel contended that the accused forged the digital signature of the defacto complainant. Further, they used it to upload incorrect information regarding the company on the website of the Registrar of Companies.

Opinion of the Bench

• The bench believed that the gravity of the crime was grave in the first and second cases.
• The bench accepted the petitioner’s view that the management was scrambled and found no merit in the first case.

Final Decision

• The bench, therefore, allowed the third petition and granted bail to those accused.

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