Category: Cyber Laws

Categories
Blog Criminal Law Cyber Laws Intellectual Property Law Online law courses in India Online legal courses Uncategorized

Regulation of VC funding in India: A critical analysis

This blog post has been authored by Ms. Prerna Kashyap

INTRODUCTION

The venture capital industry evolved in the late 1980s in India. Back in 1973, a committee on Development of Small and Medium Enterprises highlighted the need to foster venture capital as a source of funding new entrepreneurs and technology. The Government of India took a policy initiative and announced guidelines for venture capital funds (VCFs) in 1988 on the basis of a study undertaken by the World Bank. Slowly and gradually various rules and regulations were made to deal with the venture capital funding in India.[1]

VENTURE CAPITAL  

Venture capital (VC) funds start-ups and early-stage emerging companies having significant potential for growth[2] but involves high risk.

Section 2(z) and 2(za) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 (“AIF Regulations”) defines “venture capital fund” as an “Alternative Investment Fund which invests primarily in unlisted securities of start-ups, emerging or early-stage venture capital undertakings mainly involved in new products, new services, technology or intellectual property right based activities or a new business model and shall include an angel fund as defined under Chapter III-A” and “venture capital undertaking” as “a domestic company which is not listed on a recognised stock exchange at the time of making investments” respectively.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is the nodal regulator for VCFs to provide a uniform, hassle free, single window regulatory framework. Various regulations such as the SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996 (“VCF Regulations”) and the SEBI (Foreign Venture Capital Investor) Regulations, 2000 have been issued on the recommendation of the Chandrasekhar committee fostering growth in the industry. As per the SEBI report relating to activities of VCFs until June this year, a total of Rs. 22,563.88 crores VCF has been raised.[3]

THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS) REGULATIONS, 1996 AND SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT FUNDS) REGULATIONS, 2012

AIF Regulations has been brought in order to replace the VCF Regulations and has been notified vide PR no. 62/2012[4] dated May 12, 2012. As per the AIF regulations, the funds registered as VCF under VCF Regulations shall continue to be regulated by the same till the existing fund or scheme managed by the fund is wound up and such funds shall not launch any new scheme after notification of these regulations. VCF may seek re-registration, subject to approval of their investors.[5]

Registration of Venture Capital Fund

VCFs are included in “Category I Alternative Investment Fund”[6]. No entity or person shall act as a VCF unless it has obtained a certificate of registration from the SEBI. Form ‘A’ lays down the instructions for the application for the grant of the certificate. Eligibility criteria are prescribed for the purpose of the grant of certificate to an applicant. Vide Explanation[7] of sub- clause (a) of sub- regulation (4) of regulation 3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012, states that a VCF can be organized in the form of a trust or a company.

Investment Conditions and Restrictions

The AIF Regulations specify that VCFs shall state investment strategy and any material alteration to the fund strategy shall be made with the consent of unit holders; they shall raise funds through private placement by issue of placement memorandum and may launch schemes subject to filing of placement memorandum. The minimum tenure is prescribed as 3 years. Units of close- ended VCFs may be listed on the stock exchange.[8]

VCFs may invest in securities of companies incorporated outside India subject to conditions issued by the Reserve Bank of India and the SEBI. They shall invest not more than 25% of investable funds in an investee company whereas a large value fund for an accredited investor may invest up to 50% of investable funds in an investee company. They shall not offer their units to other VCFs if they are investing in units of other VCFs.

If a VCF is investing in associates/ units of VCFs managed by manager/ sponsor/by associates, approval of 75% of investors by value for investment is required. The terms of co-investment by a manager/ sponsor/ co-investor, shall not be more favourable than the terms of investment of the VCF. Un-invested portion of investable funds and divestment proceeds pending for distribution to investors shall be invested as prescribed in regulations.

Investment by VCFs in the shares of entities listed on institutional trading platforms shall be deemed to be investment in ‘unlisted securities’ for the purpose of these regulations. They shall invest in investee companies, venture capital undertaking (VCUs), special purpose vehicles, limited liability partnerships (LLPs) in units of other Category I AIFs of the same sub category or in units of Category II AIFs as specified in this regulation. They shall not borrow funds & shall not engage in leverage except for meeting temporary requirements. They shall invest at least 75% of the investable funds in unlisted equity shares or equity linked instruments of VCU or in companies listed or proposed to be listed on SME exchange and this shall be achieved by the VCFs by the end of its life cycle. For the purpose of market making, the VCF is required to enter an agreement with a merchant banker.[9]

Angel fund is a sub-category of VCF that raises funds from angel investors and invests in accordance with the prescribed provisions[10].

VCFs are exempted from certain provisions of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015 in respect of companies listed or proposed to be listed on SME exchange.[11]

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (FOREIGN VENTURE CAPITAL INVESTORS) REGULATIONS, 2000
Registration of Foreign Venture Capital Investors

The applicant shall make an application to the Board in Form A along with the application fee.[12] The applicant should be granted the necessary permission by the RBI to make investments in India. Eligibility criteria are prescribed for the purpose of the grant of certificate to an applicant.[13]

Investment Conditions and Restrictions for a Foreign Venture Capital Investor

Investor shall disclose his investment strategy and it can invest all his funds in one VCF.

A Foreign Venture Capital Investor (FVCI) shall make investment in at least 66.67% of the investible funds in unlisted equity shares or equity linked instruments of VCUs or make an investment in not more than 33.33% of the investible funds by way of:

  • subscription to initial public offer of a VCU proposed to be listed;
  • debt instrument of a VCU in which the FVCI already has equity investment;
  • preferential allotment of equity shares of a listed company subject to 1 year lock-in period.[14]
Obligations of a Foreign Venture Capital Investor

FVCI shall maintain books of account and records for a period of 8 years. It shall appoint a custodian for custody of the securities who shall monitor the investment. It shall furnish periodic reports to the SEBI and information as required/ called for by the SEBI.  It shall appoint a branch of a bank approved as designated bank by the RBI for opening of the foreign currency denominated account.[15]

SEBI MASTER CIRCULAR AND CIRCULARS

The SEBI master circular and circulars ensure an effective regulatory framework for VCFs and the SEBI. The SEBI specified guidelines stating that AIFs may invest in securities of companies incorporated outside India subject to the condition that they may invest in equity and equity linked instruments only of off-shore VCUs, subject to overall limit of USD 1500 million and mandating benchmarking of the performance of the VCFs which will help investors in assessing the performance of the VCF industry.[16]

In regard to the validity period of approval granted by the SEBI to VCFs for overseas investment, on recommendation of the Alternative Investments Policy Advisory Committee, it has been decided to reduce the time limit from 6 months to 4 months.[17]

VCFs are required to file an application to SEBI for allocation of overseas investment limit. In relation to an overseas investee company a VCF shall:[18]

  • Invest in such a company, which is incorporated in a country whose securities market regulator is a signatory to the International Organization of Securities Commission’s Multilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or a signatory to the bilateral MoU with the SEBI.
  • Not invest in a company, which is incorporated in a country identified in the public statement of the Financial Action Task Force.

VCFs shall furnish the sale/divestment details of the overseas investments to the SEBI in the format prescribed and an undertaking for the proposed investment shall be submitted to the SEBI by the trustee/board/designated partners of the VCFs.[19]

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (ISSUE OF CAPITAL AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS) REGULATIONS 2018

The regulations provide that FVCIs may contribute to meet the shortfall in promoters’ minimum contribution, subject to a maximum of 10% of the post-issue capital without being identified as promoter(s)[20] and contributions made by FVCIs in specified securities shall be locked-in for a period of 18 months from the date of allotment of the further public offer.[21]

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA (SUBSTANTIAL ACQUISITION OF SHARES AND TAKEOVERS) REGULATIONS, 2011
Exemption in case of substantial acquisition of shares or voting rights

A VCF or a FVCI registered with the SEBI, by promoters of the target company pursuant to an agreement between such VCF or FVCI and such promoters, who has acquired and holds shares or voting rights(VRs) and exercises 25% or more of the VRs in the target company but less than the maximum permissible non-public shareholding[22], shall be exempt from the obligation to make an open offer[23] to acquire within any financial year additional shares or VRs in the company and exercise more than 5% of the VRs.

A VCF established in the form of a trust/ company/ body corporate and registered under the VCF Regulations is not considered as an investment vehicle for the purpose of the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019.[24]

INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
Applicability of Angel Tax

Recently, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued an amended Rule 11UA (2) of the Income Tax Rules and it provides that for Section 56(2)(viib) of the IT Act, where a taxpayer is a VCU who has received consideration from the issue of unquoted equity shares to a VCF, the price of such equity shares corresponding to such consideration be taken as the fair market value (FMV) of the equity shares for resident and non-resident investors provided that:

  • the consideration from such FMV does not exceed the aggregate consideration received from a VCF; and
  • the consideration received by the undertaking from a VCF, within 90 days before or after the date of share issuance.[25]
WINDING UP OF A VENTURE CAPITAL FUND

Intimation of the winding up of the VCF should be given to the SEBI. VCF can be wound up in the following circumstances:[26]

If the VCF is set up as a trust, it shall be wound up:

  • When the tenure of the VCF or the scheme launched by the VCF, as mentioned in the placement memorandum is over; or
  • If in the opinion of the trustees and in the interest of the investors the VCF should be wound up; or
  • If 75% of the investors in the VCF pass a resolution at a meeting that the VCF should be wound up.

If the VCF is set up as a LLP, it shall be wound up as per the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008. If the VCF is set up as a company, it shall be wound up in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. If the VCF is set up as a body corporate, it shall be wound up as per the statute under which it is constituted.

CONCLUSION

India has come a long way in the journey of venture capital. With the increase in the number of start-ups, more and more investment opportunities are coming up in the sectors such as biopharmaceuticals, software, financial institutions and investors and so on. This shows the significance of flexible and up-to-date regulations incorporating latest developments. The Securities and Exchange Board of India issues various circulars and directions supplementing the current regulations and this helps in regulating and facilitating the influx of venture capital investments made by residents and non- residents in India.

[1] Report of Advisory Committee on Venture Capital.PDF (sebi.gov.in)

[2] Rebecca Baldridge, Understanding Venture Capital, dated 8 June, 2023 https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/venture-capital/; accessed on 17 October, 2023.

[3] SEBI | Data relating to activities of Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs), accessed on 14 October, 2023.

[4] SEBI | SEBI notifies SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations 2012, accessed on 14 October, 2023.

[5] Sub- regulation (2) of regulation 3 of the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012.

[6] Clause (a) of sub- regulation (4) of regulation 3 of the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012.

[7] Explanation.─” For the purpose of this clause, Alternative Investment Funds which are generally perceived to have positive spillover effects on economy and for which the Board or Government of India or other regulators in India might consider providing incentives or concessions shall be included and such funds which are formed as trusts or companies shall be construed as “venture capital company” or “venture capital fund” as specified under sub-section (23FB) of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

[8] Chapter II, Registration of Alternative Investment Funds of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012.

 

[9] Ibid.

[10] Sub- regulation (1) of Regulation 19A of the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012.

[11] Sub- clause (c) of sub- regulation (3) of regulation 16 of the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012.

[12] Regulation 3 of the SEBI (Foreign Venture Capital Investors) Regulations, 2000.

[13] Regulation 4 of the SEBI (Foreign Venture Capital Investors) Regulations, 2000.

[14] Regulation 11 of the SEBI (Foreign Venture Capital Investors) Regulations, 2000.

[15] Chapter IV of the General Obligations and Responsibilities of the SEBI (Foreign Venture Capital Investors) Regulations, 2000.

[16] SEBI Master Circular No. SEBI/HO/AFD/PoD1/P/CIR/2023/130 dated July 31, 2023, available at: https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/master-circulars/jul-2023/master-circular-for-alternative-investment-funds-aifs-_74796.html, accessed on 13 October, 2023.

[17] SEBI Circular No. SEBI/HO/AFD/PoD/CIR/P/2023/137 dated August 04, 2023, available at: https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/circulars/aug-2023/validity-period-of-approval-granted-by-sebi-to-alternative-investment-funds-aifs-and-venture-capital-funds-vcfs-for-overseas-investment_74979.html, accessed on 17 October, 2023.

[18] SEBI Circular No. SEBI/HO/AFD-1/PoD/CIR/P/2022/108 dated August 17, 2023, available at: SEBI | Guidelines for overseas investment by Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) / Venture Capital Funds (VCFs), accessed on 14 October, 2023.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Sub-regulation (1) of regulation 14 of the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations 2018.

[21] Clause (a) of regulation 115 of the SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations 2018.

[22] Sub- regulation (2) of regulation 3 of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011.

[23] Sub- clause (f) of sub- regulation (4) of regulation 10 of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011.

 

[24] Reserve Bank of India – Master Directions (rbi.org.in)

[25] Alerts: Direct Tax Alert – CBDT notifies amended Valuation Rules in respect of Angel tax, available on Direct Tax Alert – CBDT notifies amended Valuation Rules in respect of Angel tax – BDO, accessed on 18 October, 2023.

[26] Regulation 29 of the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012.

 

Categories
Blog Cyber Laws

Landmark Cyber Law cases in India

By:-Muskan Sharma

Introduction

Cyber Law, as the name suggests, deals with statutory provisions that regulate Cyberspace. With the advent of digitalization and AI (Artificial Intelligence), there is a significant rise in Cyber Crimes being registered. Around 44, 546 cases were registered under the Cyber Crime head in 2019 as compared to 27, 248 cases in 2018. Therefore, a spike of 63.5% was observed in Cyber Crimes[1].

The legislative framework concerning Cyber Law in India comprises the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “IT Act”) and the Rules made thereunder. The IT Act is the parent legislation that provides for various forms of Cyber Crimes, punishments to be inflicted thereby, compliances for intermediaries, and so on.

Learn more about Cyber Laws Courses with Enhelion’s Online Law Course! 

However, the IT Act is not exhaustive of the Cyber Law regime that exists in India. There are some judgments that have evolved the Cyber Law regime in India to a great extent. To fully understand the scope of the Cyber Law regime, it is pertinent to refer to the following landmark Cyber Law cases in India:

  1. Shreya Singhal v. UOI[2]

In the instant case, the validity of Section 66A of the IT Act was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Facts: Two women were arrested under Section 66A of the IT Act after they posted allegedly offensive and objectionable comments on Facebook concerning the complete shutdown of Mumbai after the demise of a political leader. Section 66A of the IT Act provides punishment if any person using a computer resource or communication, such information which is offensive, false, or causes annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, hatred, injury, or ill will.

The women, in response to the arrest, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act on the ground that it is violative of the freedom of speech and expression.

Decision: The Supreme Court based its decision on three concepts namely: discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It observed that mere discussion or even advocacy of a cause, no matter how unpopular, is at the heart of the freedom of speech and expression. It was found that Section 66A was capable of restricting all forms of communication and it contained no distinction between mere advocacy or discussion on a particular cause which is offensive to some and incitement by such words leading to a causal connection to public disorder, security, health, and so on.

Learn more about Cyber Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Course! 

In response to the question of whether Section 66A attempts to protect individuals from defamation, the Court said that Section 66A condemns offensive statements that may be annoying to an individual but not affecting his reputation.

However, the Court also noted that Section 66A of the IT Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution because there existed an intelligible difference between information communicated through the internet and through other forms of speech. Also, the Apex Court did not even address the challenge of procedural unreasonableness because it is unconstitutional on substantive grounds.

  1. Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana[3]

In this case, the accused preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court after the High Court rejected the application of the accused to exhibit the Compact Disc filed in defence and to get it proved from the Forensic Science Laboratory.

Learn more about Cyber Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Course! 

The Supreme Court held that a Compact Disc is also a document. It further observed that it is not necessary to obtain admission or denial concerning a document under Section 294 (1) of CrPC personally from the accused, the complainant, or the witness.

  1. Syed Asifuddin and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.[4]

Facts: The subscriber purchased a Reliance handset and Reliance mobile services together under the Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer Scheme. The subscriber was attracted by better tariff plans of other service providers and hence, wanted to shift to other service providers. The petitioners (staff members of TATA Indicom) hacked the Electronic Serial Number (hereinafter referred to as “ESN”). The Mobile Identification Number (MIN) of Reliance handsets were irreversibly integrated with ESN, the reprogramming of ESN made the device would be validated by Petitioner’s service provider and not by Reliance Infocomm.

Questions before the Court: i) Whether a telephone handset is a “Computer” under Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act?

  1. ii) Whether manipulation of ESN programmed into a mobile handset amounts to an alteration of source code under Section 65 of the IT Act?

Decision: (i) Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act provides that a “computer” means any electronic, magnetic, optical, or other high-speed data processing device or system which performs logical, arithmetic, and memory functions by manipulations of electronic, magnetic, or optical impulses, and includes all input, output, processing, storage, computer software or communication facilities which are connected or related to the computer in a computer system or computer network. Hence, a telephone handset is covered under the ambit of “computer” as defined under Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act.

Learn more about Cyber Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Course! 

(ii)  Alteration of ESN makes exclusively used handsets usable by other service providers like TATA Indicomm. Therefore, alteration of ESN is an offence under Section 65 of the IT Act because every service provider has to maintain its own SID code and give its customers a specific number to each instrument used to avail the services provided. Therefore, the offence registered against the petitioners cannot be quashed with regard to Section 65 of the IT Act.

  1. Shankar v. State Rep[5]

Facts: The petitioner approached the Court under Section 482, CrPC to quash the charge sheet filed against him. The petitioner secured unauthorized access to the protected system of the Legal Advisor of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) and was charged under Sections 66, 70, and 72 of the IT Act.

Decision: The Court observed that the charge sheet filed against the petitioner cannot be quashed with respect to the law concerning non-granting of sanction of prosecution under Section 72 of the IT Act.

  1. Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors.[6]

Facts: The Complainant, a Luxury shoes manufacturer filed a suit seeking an injunction against an e-commerce portal www.darveys.com for indulging in a Trademark violation with the seller of spurious goods.

The question before the Court was whether the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s mark, logos, and image are protected under Section 79 of the IT Act.

Decision: The Court observed that the defendant is more than an intermediary on the ground that the website has full control over the products being sold via its platform. It first identifies and then promotes third parties to sell their products. The Court further said that active participation by an e-commerce platform would exempt it from the rights provided to intermediaries under Section 79 of the IT Act.

  1. Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT) of Delhi[7]

Facts: Avnish Bajaj, the CEO of Bazee.com was arrested under Section 67 of the IT Act for the broadcasting of cyber pornography. Someone else had sold copies of a CD containing pornographic material through the bazee.com website.

Learn more about Cyber Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Course! 

Decision: The Court noted that Mr. Bajaj was nowhere involved in the broadcasting of pornographic material. Also, the pornographic material could not be viewed on the Bazee.com website. But Bazee.com receives a commission from the sales and earns revenue for advertisements carried on via its web pages.

The Court further observed that the evidence collected indicates that the offence of cyber pornography cannot be attributed to Bazee.com but to some other person. The Court granted bail to Mr. Bajaj subject to the furnishing of 2 sureties Rs. 1 lakh each. However, the burden lies on the accused that he was merely the service provider and does not provide content.

  1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti[8]

The instant case is a landmark case in the Cyber Law regime for its efficient handling made the conviction possible within 7 months from the date of filing the FIR.

Facts: The accused was a family friend of the victim and wanted to marry her but she married another man which resulted in a Divorce. After her divorce, the accused persuaded her again and on her reluctance to marrying him, he took the course of harassment through the Internet. The accused opened a false e-mail account in the name of the victim and posted defamatory, obscene, and annoying information about the victim.

A charge-sheet was filed against the accused person under Section 67 of the IT Act and Section 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Decision: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore convicted the accused person under Section 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 67 of the IT Act. The accused was subjected to the Rigorous Imprisonment of 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 469 of the IPC, Simple Imprisonment of 1 year along with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 509 of the IPC, and Rigorous Imprisonment of 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 4,000 under Section 67 of the IT Act.

Learn more about Cyber Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Course! 

  1. CBI v. Arif Azim (Sony Sambandh case)

A website called www.sony-sambandh.com enabled NRIs to send Sony products to their Indian friends and relatives after online payment for the same.

In May 2002, someone logged into the website under the name of Barbara Campa and ordered a Sony Colour TV set along with a cordless telephone for one Arif Azim in Noida. She paid through her credit card and the said order was delivered to Arif Azim. However, the credit card agency informed the company that it was an unauthorized payment as the real owner denied any such purchase.

A complaint was therefore lodged with CBI and further, a case under Sections 418, 419, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered. The investigations concluded that Arif Azim while working at a call center in Noida, got access to the credit card details of Barbara Campa which he misused.

The Court convicted Arif Azim but being a young boy and a first-time convict, the Court’s approach was lenient towards him. The Court released the convicted person on probation for 1 year. This was one among the landmark cases of Cyber Law because it displayed that the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be an effective legislation to rely on when the IT Act is not exhaustive.

Learn more about Cyber Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Course! 

  1. Pune Citibank Mphasis Call Center Fraud

Facts: In 2005, US $ 3,50,000 were dishonestly transferred from the Citibank accounts of four US customers through the internet to few bogus accounts. The employees gained the confidence of the customer and obtained their PINs under the impression that they would be a helping hand to those customers to deal with difficult situations. They were not decoding encrypted software or breathing through firewalls, instead, they identified loopholes in the MphasiS system.

Decision: The Court observed that the accused in this case are the ex-employees of the MphasiS call center. The employees there are checked whenever they enter or exit. Therefore, it is clear that the employees must have memorized the numbers. The service that was used to transfer the funds was SWIFT i.e. society for worldwide interbank financial telecommunication. The crime was committed using unauthorized access to the electronic accounts of the customers. Therefore this case falls within the domain of ‘cyber crimes”. The IT Act is broad enough to accommodate these aspects of crimes and any offense under the IPC with the use of electronic documents can be put at the same level as the crimes with written documents.

The court held that section 43(a) of the IT Act, 2000 is applicable because of the presence of the nature of unauthorized access that is involved to commit transactions. The accused were also charged under section 66 of the IT Act, 2000 and section 420 i.e. cheating, 465,467 and 471 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

  1. SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jogesh Kwatra[9]

Facts: In this case, Defendant Jogesh Kwatra was an employee of the plaintiff’s company. He started sending derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, abusive, and filthy emails to his employers and to different subsidiaries of the said company all over the world to defame the company and its Managing Director Mr. R K Malhotra. In the investigations, it was found that the email originated from a Cyber Cafe in New Delhi. The Cybercafé attendant identified the defendant during the enquiry. On 11 May 2011, Defendant was terminated of the services by the plaintiff.

Decision: The plaintiffs are not entitled to relief of perpetual injunction as prayed because the court did not qualify as certified evidence under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Due to the absence of direct evidence that it was the defendant who was sending these emails, the court was not in a position to accept even the strongest evidence. The court also restrained the defendant from publishing, transmitting any information in the Cyberspace which is derogatory or abusive of the plaintiffs.

Conclusion

The Cyber Law regime is governed by the IT Act and the Rules made thereunder. Also, one may take recourse to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 when the IT Act is unable to provide for any specific type of offence or if it does not contain exhaustive provisions with respect to an offence.

However, the Cyber Law regime is still not competent enough to deal with all sorts of Cyber Crimes that exist at this moment. With the country moving towards the ‘Digital India’ movement, the Cyber Crimes are evolving constantly and new kinds of Cyber Crimes enter the Cyber Law regime each day. The Cyber Law regime in India is weaker than what exists in other nations.

Learn more about Cyber Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Course! 

Hence, the Cyber Law regime in India needs extensive reforms to deal with the huge spike of Cyber Crimes each year.

[1] “Crime in India – 2019” Snapshots (States/UTs), NCRB, available at: https://ncrb.gov.in/sites/default/files/CII%202019%20SNAPSHOTS%20STATES.pdf (Last visited on 25th Feb; 2021)

[2] (2013) 12 SCC 73

[3] 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1242

[4] 2005 CriLJ 4314

[5] Crl. O.P. No. 6628 of 2010

[6] (2018) 253 DLT 728

[7] (2008) 150 DLT 769

[8] CC No. 4680 of 2004

[9] CM APPL. No. 33474 of 2016