Karnataka High Court: While considering the instant petition seeking issuance of mandamus for constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct, supervise and monitor investigation in a crime registered for offences punishable under Sections 66, 66(B) and 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and Sections 318(2), 318(3), and 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS); the Bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J.*, perusing the facts of the case pointed out that it has the colour of a cyber espionage. It is a multi-layered crime involving nuances of defence technology and concerns of national defence. Investigations into such crimes demand not merely procedural competence, but an amalgamation of technical expertise and forensic acumen. The Court pointed out that investigation of crimes of such magnitude cannot be done by the Investigating Officer who is now appointed due to lack of technical expertise and an ordinary investigation would amount to miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the Court found it appropriate and imperative to constitute a SIT, as scales of justice must not tilt due to incompetence of Investigating Officers. “It is a lamentable reality that conventional Investigating Officers who are trained for the crimes of yesterday, would undoubtedly find themselves ill-equipped to grapple with cybercrimes”.
The Court pointed that the crimes over the years have emerged in different hues and forms. In this digital age where crime knows no borders and malfeasance is coded with keystrokes, the tools of conduct of investigation of such emerging crimes must evolve. An ordinary Investigating Officer or a conventional Investigating Officer would not be so equipped with such emerging crimes to decode the labyrinth of cybercrimes. Therefore, the Investigating Officers who are also acquainted with technology or trained in digital forensics, those who can trace the invisible and pierce encryption and unearth the data buried or data theft, would be required to deal with the emerging crimes.
“If the crimes are sophisticated, the Investigating Officers too shall be”.
Background:
The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, which registered a complaint on 24-12-2024 alleging data theft by its former employees. The allegedly stolen data included highly sensitive proprietary data including UAV (Drone) source codes, CAD designs and confidential defense technologies which can be used for potential misuse at their new employment.
Court’s Assessment:
While perusing the matter, the Court had to consider whether the petitioner’s prayer vis-a-vis constitution of the SIT should be granted or not.
The Court noted that the petitioner has a huge clientele which all relate to national security stakeholders such as, the Indian Army, Air Force, Navy, HAL and DRDO etc., and all contracts underlying are highly sensitive in nature.
Upon investigation, one of the accused was arrested from Noida and the arrest should have led to bringing the accused to Bangalore and continued the investigation. However, the Investigating Officer issues a notice under Section 35 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Court remarked that once arrest has happened, it is not understandable as to how the Investigating Officer had issued a notice under Section 35(3) for appearance. What ought to have been custodial interrogation, leads to appearance before the Investigating Officer. It was the first needle of suspicion with regard to fake investigation being conducted in the case at hand.
The Court further noted that the petitioner then approached the High Court seeking seizure of entire material claimed to be belonging to the petitioner. A Court Commissioner was appointed and in his report of seizure, the Commission highlighted that he was threatened and there was an attempt to influence the report.
The Court pointed out that if the accused had already been arrested, what should have been custodial interrogation became conversion of an arrest into Section 35(3) notice. All link in the chain of events, would undoubtedly cast suspicion upon the conduct of a fair investigation at the hands of the Investigating Officer.
The Court remarked that in this digital age, crime transcends frontiers with the click of a mouse. The conventional crimes like robbery, theft, breaking open the lock and stealing money have largely gone into the oblivion with the emergence of the new age crime, the cybercrime. It is in public domain that the rate of filing of charge sheet, in such new age crimes is only at 9%, not because the accused are not guilty, it is because the Investigating Officers are not equipped to bring those accused to books. This is due to lack of expertise in dealing with cybercrimes.
The Court said that the State thus must recognize the existential threat and evolve, failing which, justice to those victims will become a mirage. It is again in public domain that the State of Karnataka recognizing the huge problem of cybercrime, has in fact come up with a novel idea of a cyber command centre, to be headed by an officer of the rank of the Director General of Police. If a cyber command centre is established to combat cybercrimes and strengthen cyber security, it would usher a new beginning of tackling the new age crime with new age investigating centres. This is the paradigm shift that is imperative. Such cyber command centres should be made meaningfully functional by appropriate officers manning such cyber command centres. It is only then the State will leap forward to tackle the emergence and growth of cybercrime, failing which, the citizen who has been a victim of cybercrime or cyber frauds will never get justice. Therefore, the State shall endeavour to give life to the cyber command centres or constitute a separate wing to tackle cybercrime. Such Investigating Agency will be a pioneer in the new age crime by a new age investigative branch.
The Court urged that the aforesaid direction should not remain only on paper or become a paper direction.
[Newspace Research and Technologies Private Limited v. State of Karnataka, WRIT PETITION No.8403 OF 2025, decided on 25-4-2025]
*Judgment by Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Sri Angad Kamath, counsel appearing for the petitioner
Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S. Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents
