PROBLEM ANALYSIS

Information Technology Law 2nd Internal

AHAAN RAIZADA
3rd YEAR BA LLB

DIVISION D

PRN: 18010125309

1
A. ABC Co. is not a Company registered in India. In such a case will Indian Courts
have jurisdiction to try ABC Co. for any offences committed under the Information
Technology Act, 2000? The adjudicating officer of which State will have jurisdiction
to adjudicate any claim filed by XYZ Co. for compensation as against ABC Co. and
why? 3marks

1. The Indian Courts will have the jurisdiction to try ABC Co. for offences committed under
the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“the Act”) as Section 1(2) read with Section
75(2) of the Act provides for the application of the Act to any offence or contravention
committed outside India by any person if such offence or contravention involves a
computer, computer system or a computer network (“Computers”) located in India.1
Furthermore, Section 85 provides that the any person in charge of the company and the
company itself shall be liable for any offences committed under the provisions of the
Act.2 Therefore, upon a combined reading of the aforementioned provisions, it becomes
clear that jurisdiction can be exercised by the Courts despite ABC Co. not being a
registered company in India as it has directly committed offences that have a bearing on
Computers used by XYZ Co. in Pune. Furthermore, the doctrine of minimum contacts
test, as laid down in the case of International Shoe Co. v. Washington3, can also be applied to
exercise jurisdiction. The test postulates that the defendant must have intentionally directed
activities towards the forum state for conducting business. In this case, ABC Co. directed its
illegal acts (elaborated in Question 2) toward the state of India with the intention of increasing
their market share therein.

2. Lastly, the Adjudicating Officer of the State of Maharashtra will have the jurisdiction as
XYZ Co. is a Company registered in Pune, Maharashtra and since its computer system
lies there, the complaint will have to be filed to the Adjudicating Officer of that State i.e.,
Maharashtra.4

1
Section 1(2) read with Section 75(2), Information Technology Act, 2000.
2
Section 85(1), Information Technology Act, 2000.
3
326 U.S. 340 (1945).
4
Rule 4, Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of
Holding Enquiry)Rules, 2003.

2
B. Identify on what grounds, compensation can be claimed by XYZ Co. as against ABC
Co. Refer to relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3marks

1. The grounds of compensation that can be claimed by XYZ Co. can be both on civil and
criminal grounds. For civil remedy i.e., damages by way of compensation, the relevant
provision would be Section 43 of the Act read with Section 84 of the Act, which are:
i. (Abetting) unauthorised access of the computer of Mr. A.5
ii. (Abetting) unauthorised access of the network of XYZ Co.6
iii. (Abetting) unauthorised copying of the confidential business data on the
computer, computer system and computer network of XYZ Co.7
iv. (Abetting) damage8 destruction, deletion or alteration of information/data i.e.,
databases of XYZ Co.’s buyers from Mr. A’s computer.9
v. Providing assistance to Mr. A (by giving instructions and monetary compensation)
to facilitate access to computer system and network of Mr. X and XYZ Co.
respectively.10
vi. Causing alteration to the source code data of XYZ Co. with an intention to cause
damage.11

2. Furthermore, XYZ Co. can also sue ABC Co. on criminal grounds under Section 65 for
tampering with the source code documents intentionally.12 Section 66 is also an available
recourse which provides for liability for the same offences as under Section 43 but herein
the ingredients of dishonest and fraudulent intention are present thereby attracting
criminal liability.13 This is clear through the elaborate conspiracy hatched by ABC Co. to
ultimately increase their market share. Mr. Z only committed the Offending Acts
consequent to the instigation from ABC Co., who had initially approached Mr. A to enter
into an Agreement to commit such Offending Acts for a fee of $10,000. The conspiracy
was to access Mr. A’s computers without his knowledge, through deceitful borrowing of
Mr. X’s computer, in order to gain access to and cause erasure of such confidential data
and finally alter the source code to disrupt the efficiency of delivery process of XYZ Co.
5
Section 43(a), Information Technology Act, 2000.
6
Id.
7
Section 43(b), Information Technology Act, 2000.
8
Section 43(d), Information Technology Act, 2000.
9
Section 43(i), Information Technology Act, 2000.
10
Section 43(g), Information Technology Act, 2000.
11
Section 43(j), Information Technology Act, 2000.
12
Section 65, Information Technology Act, 2000.
13
Gagan Hash Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 17705.

3
 so that ABC Co. can gain XYZ Co.’s customers, thereby ultimately increasing their
market share in India. Therefore, ABC Co., despite not directly committing the offenses,
is guilty of the same under Section 84B by way of abetment.

C. Can Mr. Z and Mr. X be made accountable as per the provisions of the Information
Technology Act, 2000? If yes enumerate the applicable provisions. If no, why not?
2marks

1. Mr. Z is directly accountable as per the provisions stated above. ABC Co. is liable only
for the abetment of the offences numbered i-vi in the previous question whereas it is Mr.
Z who is directly liable for those offences; unauthorised access to the computer system,
unauthorised copying of confidential data, deletion of information from the computer
system and altering the computer source code of XYZ Co.’s network. He is also equally
liable under the criminal provisions 65 and 66 as he had dishonest and fraudulent
intention to enter into and perform a contract that is unlawful under the provisions of the
IT Act.
2. Mr. X is not liable as he lent his laptop to Mr. A in good faith without any active intention
to or knowledge of committing or facilitating any crime. Section 43 commences with
“without the permission of the owner…” thus Mr. Z never took permission from Mr. X
for committing such offences and committed them wrongfully.

D. Identify whether any offences have been committed under the Information
Technology Act, 2000. Justify your answer with reference to suitable provisions.
2marks
1. Upon a prima facie perusal of the facts, it is evident that Mr. Z has directly committed,
and ABC Co. has abetted, the following Offending Acts under Section 43 being:
i. Unauthorisedly accessing the computer of Mr. A.14
ii. Unauthorisedly accessing the computer network of XYZ Co. 15
iii. Unauthorisedly copying the confidential business data on the computer, computer
system and computer network of XYZ Co.16

14
Section 43(a), Information Technology Act, 2000.
15
Id.
16
Section 43(b), Information Technology Act, 2000.

4
 iv. Damaged17, destroyed, deleted or altered information/data relating to XYZ Co.’s
buyers. from Mr. A’s computer.18
v. Causing alteration to the source code data of XYZ Co. with an intention to cause
damage.19

3. ABC Co. is liable for the contravention of such offences under Section 84B i.e.,
“Punishment for the Abetment of Offences”. The section states that if no express
provision is made in the Act for the abetment of such offences then the abettor is liable
hereinunder.20 The test for determining whether an act is committed in pursuance of
abetment or not is given under the Explanation to Section 84B: “when such act is
committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with
the aid which constitutes the abetment.”21 The conspiracy has been proved under Question
2.

4. Furthermore, ABC Co. has directly committed the offence under Section 43(j). The direct
liability arises due to the wording of the sub-section including “causing any person…”.
Such “causing” is in the nature of abetment but is not the same as that under Section 84B.
This is because Section 84B envisages imputing liability in instances where an offence
has not been specifically covered under the Act, whereas in this case, Section 43(j)
specifically covers such abetment.

5. Lastly, the offences under Section 65 and 66 are also made out as there was dishonest and
intentional tampering of source code documents and commission of offences under
Section 43.

Word Count (excluding footnotes, cover page and question headings): 1078

17
Section 43(d), Information Technology Act, 2000.
18
Section 43(i), Information Technology Act, 2000.
19
Section 43(j), Information Technology Act, 2000.
20
Section 84B, Information Technology Act, 2000.
21
Id.