Employees Stolen Data, Algorithm of a company to start a new one?#highcourtjudge

Summary

The transcript revolves around a legal argument concerning data theft and misappropriation. The speaker contests the charges, highlighting issues such as the lack of concrete evidence, inadequate investigation, and the ambiguous status of data as property under Indian law. The speaker emphasizes that the burden of proof lies with the opposing party and disputes the application of general offenses under the IPC. Key legal concerns include the role of the police, the validity of the charge sheet, and the impact of lawyer-drafted complaints on the judicial process. The speaker seeks to challenge whether confidential data can legally constitute theft.

Takeaways

• 😀 The general offenses under the IPC do not automatically eclipse specific offenses under intellectual property laws, contrary to the argument made by the opposing counsel.
• 😀 Civil and criminal cases can coexist as long as each case is individually proven, as suggested in the argument about the concurrent civil suit and criminal case.
• 😀 The burden of proof lies with the opposing party to demonstrate the material evidence in the charge sheet, not the petitioner.
• 😀 The complainant cannot directly seize electronic devices like laptops; only the police have the authority to do so, as per the complaint's request for police intervention.
• 😀 A case becomes one instituted on a police report once cognizance is taken on a charge sheet, shifting the prosecution burden to the prosecutor rather than the complainant.
• 😀 Courts should be more cautious and conduct a deeper inquiry when the complaint is drafted by a lawyer, to avoid clever drafting that could mislead the case.
• 😀 A five-year investigation with no recoveries or witness statements casts doubt on the validity of the charge sheet and the legitimacy of the case.
• 😀 The legal framework requires a clearer distinction between data theft and data misappropriation, as the allegations in the case seem to conflate the two.
• 😀 The matter of whether confidential or proprietary data can be considered property for the purpose of theft charges is still in question, with reliance on foreign jurisprudence for guidance.
• 😀 The counsel emphasizes that no Indian legal precedent has addressed whether confidential information can be treated as property in theft-related offenses, suggesting the need for judicial clarification.

Q & A

What does the advocate argue regarding the interpretation of the Digumarti judgment?

The advocate argues that the opposing party has misinterpreted the Digumarti judgment. He claims that it does not establish a general rule that specific offenses under the IPC are eclipsed by other laws, and emphasizes that the judgment should be read in light of the Bombay High Court's interpretation.

What is the main contention regarding the burden of proof in this case?

The advocate asserts that the complainant has failed to discharge their burden of proving the offense. The responsibility lies with the complainant to present the necessary evidence for the case, and if they do not, the charge should be dismissed.

How does the advocate address the issue of civil and criminal cases coexisting?

The advocate acknowledges the existence of a civil suit but contends that civil and criminal cases can coexist as long as each case is individually substantiated with its own evidence. He argues that the complainant should not try to confuse the two types of cases.

What is the argument regarding the evidence (or lack thereof) in the charge sheet?

The advocate argues that the charge sheet lacks sufficient evidence, such as forensic reports or recovery of stolen material, which makes the case untenable. He points out that the complainant has not provided any concrete material or evidence in the charge sheet.

Why does the advocate challenge the complainant's reliance on the police for the seizure of evidence?

The advocate challenges the complainant’s request for police to seize copyrighted material (laptops, electronic records), arguing that the proper procedure was not followed. The complainant should have sought a 156(3) reference for a police investigation before requesting the seizure of property.

What does the advocate say about the lawyer-drafted complaint?

The advocate suggests that the lawyer-drafted complaint may have been cleverly written to fit the requirements for an offense. He calls for a more thorough inquiry into the complaint to determine whether it has been intentionally designed to mislead the court.

What is the issue raised about the police investigation?

The advocate points out that despite a five-year police investigation, no 161 statements were taken, no materials were recovered, and the investigation seems to lack substance. This weakens the validity of the charge sheet and calls into question the legitimacy of the case.

What does the advocate say about the ambiguity of the complaint?

The advocate argues that the complaint is unclear, and even after reviewing it, it is difficult to determine whether the complainant is charging data theft or data misappropriation. The ambiguity in the complaint further undermines the case.

Why is the issue of data being considered property crucial in this case?

The advocate raises the important legal question of whether data can be considered property for the purposes of a theft offense. He argues that the complainant has not proven this, and there is no clear Indian court judgment on whether confidential data can be subject to theft, referring to a relevant judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada as persuasive authority.

What is the advocate requesting the court to do in light of these issues?

The advocate requests the court to carefully review the points raised, particularly the issue of whether confidential data can be considered property for theft offenses. He also asks the court to assess the adequacy of the charge sheet, the police investigation, and the clarity of the complaint before proceeding with the case.