Section 67 of the information technology act
Rajesh Tandon
(Querist) 10 May 2013
This query is : Resolved
1. This is a query related to Section 67 of the Information Technology ACT. While surfing the Internet I found that in number of cases the police has registered FIR under the section 67 of the information technology ACT on complaint by women.
2. My boss has a very bad habit of ridiculing his staff and being sarcastic publicly & insulting any body based on his mood. At times rather than indulging in professional work where his decisions are required, he is more into sending the e-mails to his staff . A couple of times these e-mails are with a naughty and obscene content. The staff is of course all male members only .
3. Under IPC there are various sections for punishment for the number of offences under different sections whereby it is clarified whether the offence is cognizable or non-cognizable. Where it is cognizable, the FIR are can be lodged by the police .However nothing could be found in the information technology act which lays down as to if the offence under section 67 constitutes a cognizable offence or non-cognizable.
4. It is very important to ascertain this aspect since a number of times even if the offence is cognizable, police refuses to register the FIR whereby there is a need to send the complaint to SP of the police to direct concerned police station to lodge the FIR. In certain cases of women as mentioned above, may be the police must have lodged FIR due to sensitivity of the case since women were victim.
5. My basic query is to find out as to if police has to be told to lodge FIR under section 67 of the information technology act, then what are the convincing grounds i.e cognizable or not and if the offence under section 67 of the IT act can be coupled with any particular section of IPC under which it is cognizable and FIR can be lodged. In fact, by virtue of amendment to information technology act of 2000 issued vide the said Amendment act of 2008, in the section 78 of the IT act for the purpose of investigation, the rank of DSP has been replaced by Inspector.
6. Please guide suitably.
Adv. Chandrasekhar
(Expert) 11 May 2013
As per S.67 of IT Act, as the sentence may extend upto 3 years imprisonment, it is non-cognizable and bailable- if it is the first time offence, on the basis of second schedule of Cr.P.C. But S.67-A,67-B and 67-C are cognizable and non-bailable offences as the sentence is for 5 years imprisonment. In S.67 cases, you have to move complaint before adjudicating officer appointed under S.46 of the Act. Appellate remedy against the order of adjudicating authority is also provided under S.48 of the Act. Alternatively you can move complaint before the Ist class Magistrate under S.200 read with S.156 Cr.p.c.but due to alternative remedy available in the IT Act, it is difficult for you to maintain this complaint before the Magistrate.
