Bombay High Court Overturns Major Convictions in Cyber Terrorism Case

Conviction under Official Secrets Act upheld for negligence; Cyber terrorism charges quashed due to lack of intent

In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench has partially overturned the convictions of Nishant Agrawal, an employee of BrahMos Aerospace, who was previously sentenced to life imprisonment on charges of cyber terrorism and espionage. The court quashed the convictions under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and various sections of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, citing a lack of evidence proving intent to harm national security.

The court maintained the conviction under Section 5(1)(d) of the Official Secrets Act, which pertains to negligence in handling secret documents. The bench, comprising Justices Anil S. Kilor and Pravin S. Patil, emphasized that while the prosecution failed to establish the necessary mens rea, or guilty mind, for more severe charges, they did prove negligence in taking reasonable care of sensitive information.

Agrawal was initially convicted by an Additional Sessions Judge in Nagpur, following allegations that he leaked classified information to foreign agents through social media platforms. The prosecution had failed to demonstrate that Agrawal's actions were intended to threaten India's unity or security, a key component required to uphold the cyber terrorism charge.

The court found that while Agrawal did possess sensitive documents, these were part of an authorized project under his superior, Alan Abraham, during his tenure at BrahMos Aerospace. The failure of the prosecution to examine Abraham and establish unauthorized possession or intent to misuse the information was a critical factor in the court's decision.

Evidence presented during the trial, including testimony from multiple witnesses, revealed that many of the documents in Agrawal's possession were for training purposes, and much of the information was already available in the public domain. The court noted that Agrawal's interactions on social media were related to job prospects and not espionage.

The court's decision underscores the importance of proving intent in cases involving national security and highlights the necessity for thorough investigation and prosecution in such sensitive matters.

Bottom Line:

The prosecution failed to prove offences under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 3(1)(c), 5(1)(a), (b), (c), and 5(3) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction upheld only under Section 5(1)(d) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, for failure to take reasonable care of secret documents.

Statutory provision(s): Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Sections 3(1)(c), 5(1)(a), (b), (c), and (d), 5(3) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Nishant v. Anti Terrorist Squad, Lucknow, (Bombay)(Nagpur Bench)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2816427