TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (1) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... court below has grossly erred in not appreciating the facts of the case that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 to carry on business in India and abroad of, inter alia, online support services, software development, providing technical support and services. Ld . Counsel further submitted that the complaint contains certain allegations with respect to content allegedly available on and petitioner does not control or operate the servers that host Facebook.com and does not have any role relating to the policies for removal /control of content on Facebook.com. Ld . Counsel further submitted that IT Act, 2000 and Indian Penal Code, 1860 do not equate an electronic record with a document. However, for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he source of such contents are consequently liable to be prosecuted and punished under Sections 153(A)/153(B)/292/293 /295(A)/ 298/109/500 and 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860. Ld . Sr. Advocate has further submitted that the complaint contains no information whatsoever regarding the uniform resource locator or any other evidence that would at least prima facie established the petitioner's ownership and control over the websites. The complainant refers to several services which are not provided by the petitioner and in relation to which no liability can be fastened on the petitioner. It is further submitted that the details regarding the ownership, management and control of website named in the complaint and with which the petitioner is a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by him. Petitioner is neither an intermediatory nor a service provider and his only job is for advertising and any information sought by anyone is free of cost. The petitioner is neither the service provider nor the platform on which objectionable material has been loaded. Therefore the petitioner is on a better footing and is exempted under Section 79 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000. Ld . Counsel has further relied upon Section 65 -B(2) of the Evidence Act, which was inserted by Act 21 of 2000. a. The computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 65B of the Evidence Act while recording evidence and through the testimony of Const. Rajvir PW -14 has exhibited printout details of mobile telephone number 9899545415 as Ex.PW -14/A and Ex.PW -14/B. The learned Trial Judge appears to be totally unaware as to how a document in electronic form has to be proved. It has to be proved either by means of a certificate issued by the person/authority in whose custody the device in which the document was stored in an electronic form that the printout generated has been through the device and reflects an information stored in electronic form in the ordinary course or through the testimony of the person who generates the printout from the device in which the same is stored .It cannot be exhibite....