Section 75 : Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (Section 75): IT Act to apply for offence or contravention committed outside India.
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall apply also to any offence or contravention committed outside India by any person irrespective of his nationality.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), this Act shall apply to an offence or contravention committed outside India by any person if the act or conduct constituting the offence or contravention involves a computer, computer system or computer network located in India.
The aforesaid section takes a broader view of cyber crimes, committed by cyber criminals. It is not concerned with the territoriality and nationality of cyber criminals.
The essential ingredients are:
- any person, irrespective of nationality
- any offense or contravention committed outside India
- the said offence or contravention must have been committed against a computer, computer system or computer network located in India.
Act has adopted the principle of Universal Jurisdiction to cover both Cyber contraventions and cyber offences.
Moreover, the amendment in Section 4 of IPC, 1860 has further strengthened the aforesaid section. Section 4 (3) of IPC states
that: “any person in any place without and beyond India committing offence targeting a computer resource located in India”
(a) the word “offence” includes every act committed outside India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under this Code;
(b) the expression “computer resource” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.]
Section 75 of the Act, read with section 4(3) of IPC takes cognizance of offences, although committed outside India, but were targeted at a computer resource located in India.
Abhinav Gupta v. JCB India Limited and Ors
Relevant Facts of the Case
The plaintiff/respondent in the current case is a company with the largest equipment manufacturer w.r.t. construction and machinery who used to sell the products under the name of ]CB and its logo. Defendant/Appellant in the current case worked as a design manager in the respondent’s company.
According to the terms and conditions, he wasn’t authorized to enclose the confidential information, drawings, design plans pertaining to the respondent’s company.
Gradually, he left this Company and joined a competitor company named Escorts Construction Equipment Limited.
The Appellant had allegedly misappropriated and misutilized the confidential data, design, secrets and related information from the Plaintiff Company by transmitting such information from his official mail id to personal mail id. The unauthorised access violates Section 43 of The IT Act, 2000 and also breaches the copyright and confidential information. The appellant has filed an application under Order under O VII R 11 on the ground that it is barred under the provisions of the IT Act, 2000.
However court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it has no merit.