Let's Build a Responsible Cyber Society


.

 

Can ITA-2000 Chapter XI Crimes be Compounded?

With increasing number of Cyber Crime Cases coming up for judicial review including cases like Bazee.com, there is a discussion brewing in legal circles about the "Compoundability of Offences under ITA-2000".

In the interest of a good academic discussion coming forth in this aspect, this preliminary piece of article is presented.

Compounding (Compromising) is a  concept that is meant to allow an affected party condone the accused and arrive at a compromise solution so that further the legal proceedings can be dropped. It is not equal to withdrawal of a charge or a complaint but an agreement not to pursue the legal battle and spare the accused from further consequences.

In India, offences which are allowed to be compounded (Compromised) are described under different statutes differently.

Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 describes the compoundability of offences under IPC. Different offences under IPC  are categorised for this purpose as  offences which are simple and not grave in nature and which can be compounded by the affected party only and those which are considered to be a bit more grave and thus needing the supervision of the court while being compounded by the affected party.

The list of offences that can be compounded under IPC are described here.

Similar provisions are also available in other Statutes such as the Companies Act (Section 430) which specify the specific procedures for compounding of offences falling under the respective laws.

In the light of this background, let us see what ITA-2000 says on Compounding of offences.

According to Section 63 of ITA-2000,

Compounding of Contravention

(1) Any contravention under this Act [substituted for "Chapter" vide amendment dated 19/09/2002] may, either before or after the institution of adjudication proceedings, be compounded by the Controller or such other officer as may be specially authorised by him in this behalf or by the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, subject to such conditions as the Controller or such other officer or the adjudicating officer may specify:

Provided that such sum shall not, in any case, exceed the maximum amount of the penalty which may be imposed under this Act for the contravention so compounded.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to a person who commits the same or similar contravention within a period of three years from the date on which the first contravention, committed by him, was compounded.

Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, any second or subsequent contravention committed after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which the contravention was previously compounded shall be deemed to be a first contravention.

(3)Where any contravention has been compounded under sub-section (1), no proceeding or further proceeding, as the case may be, shall be taken against the person guilty of such contravention in respect of the contravention so compounded.

The key points that we need to note in this section is

a) The first draft of the Act contained the words " Contravention under this Chapter" which was changed to "Contravention under this Act"

b) The section states that "either before or after the institution of the adjudication proceedings"

c) The authority for Compounding is mentioned primarily as the Controller.

d) The section also indicates that the Controller or the Adjudicator himself may appoint any other officer on his behalf.

Based on the above, we may draw the following reasoned conclusions.

a) This section is presently found in Chapter X of the Act and the contraventions are mentioned in Chapter IX of the Act. The "offences" on the other hand are mentioned much later in the Act in Chapter XI.

When the earlier draft was released, naavi.org had pointed out this mistake of the use of the word "Chapter" and subsequently it has been rectified. It appears that initially this section was intended to be part of Chapter IX where the civil type of contraventions, the liabilities and the adjudication procedures are mentioned. Later this has been shifted to Chapter X after the discussion of the CRAT.

However, the section does not mention whether compounding can be made by CRAT either before or after an appeal is being considered.

Since CRAT is conceived as judicially more powerful than the adjudicator or the Controller, it does not make sense that no mention is made about compounding of the offence with the concurrence of CRAT in any case.

Whatever may be the reason for this omission, we may now interpret the current provisions as if the Compounding is permitted only in two intervening periods one before an adjudication process starts and the other after the adjudication process starts but before the commencement of the CRAT proceedings (or other appeal process).

b) Since at present "Adjudication" is available only for Chapter IX contaventions, Compounding is not available for Chapter XI offences.

c) This interpretation goes with the selection of the Controller as the authority for Compounding since it would not be conceivable for the Controller to decide on the Compoundability in case of an offence such as falling under Section 67 which in most cases is clubbed with some sections of IPC as well.

Since Section 320 of CrPc is very clear on what sections of IPC come under the compounding provisions, it is clear that this cannot be used to compound the offences under ITA 2000.

The other question that frequently comes across is that if a person is charged with sections from both IPC and ITA-2000 where the offence under the IPC is compoundable then, whether Section 63 can be used to Compound the offence both under IPC and ITA-2000. 

In our considered opinion, it appears that if one Act can be used to compound offences under another Act it would lead to overlapping of the provisions and is neither advisable or judicially acceptable.

Hence we may draw a conclusion that none of the offences under Chapter XI of the ITA-2000 are compoundable as per the existing provisions.

If the provisions are tried to be mis-interpreted and we argue that "How is it possible that none of the offences can be Compoundable"? then we shall be opening a possibility of a challenge of the powers of the Controller, his Capability to take a view in complicated judicial interpretations etc. The possibility of any such decisions being struck down later by higher courts is very high.

In the event of a Compounding done by the Controller being struck down, or even when the Controller himself refuses to accept his jurisdiction over compounding of Criminal offences, the parties will be left with an inter-se agreement establishing an intention to compromise and compound. This could be held against each of them by the other party if the proceedings revert to pre-compounding status.

I Invite comments on the above from Criminal Law Experts.

Naavi

February 1, 2005

Related Articles:

Compounding under IPC

Compounding under Companies Act



For Structured Online Courses in Cyber laws, Visit Cyber Law College.com

 

Back To Naavi.org