Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
As far as the question of admissibility of evidence collected by questionable means in the dowry case is concerned, it is for the Hon’ble courts to decide the use of such evidence on case to case basis, as the context and circumstances of each case are highly different.
Under IT Act, the Adjudicating officer has to decide on basic two questions
— whether IT Act was violated and if yes, then what punishment is due. Based on above circumstances and arguments. I conclude as following:
1. Respondent No. 1 has violated Section 43 of IT Act, and made unauthorized access to Gmail accounts of her husband and her father-in law, and unauthorisedly downloaded/forwarded/printed their emails and chat sessions with others, thus committing Identity Theft by using the password belonging to others dishonestly, and violating the privacy of not only the Complainants, but also of others with whom these chat sessions were conducted.
2. Given the fact that she gave the evidence only to Police and the Court, in the Dowry case lodged by her against her husband and in-laws, and did not make It widely public, I do not hold her liable for damages. Under section 66-C, there is provision of fine for Identity Theft, for dishonest use of password of any other person. I order that she pay a token fine of Rupees One Hundred to the State Treasury.
BEFORE SH. RAJESH AGGARWAL, ADJUDICATING OFFICER, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000, GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA, AT MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI — 400032
Complaint No. 2 of 2010 IN THE MATTER OF
1. Sh. Vinod Kaushik
2. Sh. Neeraj )Kaushik……..Complainants Through Mrs. S.R. Padhy, Advocate
Versus
1. Ms. Madhvika Joshi
2. Sb. Atul Tripathy
3. Ms. Monika Agnihotri
4. Cognizant Technology Solutions Pvt
