```
```
Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2016) SCC
Supreme Court of India
2016
(2016) SCC
Cyber & Criminal Law
~7 min
Author: Gulzar Hashmi
|
Location: India
|
Published: 02 Nov 2025
Section 67 IT Act
Section 81 override
Section 292 IPC
Intermediary liability (s.79)
Corporate liability
Quick Summary
This case draws a clear boundary between the IT Act and the IPC. If obscenity is in electronic form, Section 67 IT Act is the right provision. Because of Section 81, the IT Act overrides inconsistent laws, so IPC 292 cannot be used for the same electronic act. The Court also explained intermediary protection (s.79) and that officers cannot be prosecuted in isolation when the company is not arraigned.
Issues
- After discharge under Section 67 IT Act, can the accused still be tried under Section 292 IPC?
- Does the IT Act (special) override the IPC (general) for offences involving electronic records?
Rules
- Section 67 IT Act: Punishes publishing/transmitting obscene electronic content; this special provision covers the field.
- Section 81 IT Act: Gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws such as IPC 292 for the same conduct.
- Strict interpretation: When a special statute governs, general penal provisions are not to be invoked for the same act.
Facts (Timeline)
Jump here
Obscene MMS listed for sale on Baazee.com by a third-party seller.
FIR (2004) under IPC 292, 294 and IT Act 67; charges framed against officers.
Delhi HC & Supreme Court proceedings in related matters: corporate vicarious liability clarified.
Trial Court: Appellant discharged under IT Act 67 but charged under IPC 292.
High Court: Upheld 292 charges; adequate material to proceed.
Supreme Court: Challenge to 292 prosecution after 67 discharge; special law vs general law issue.
Arguments
Appellant
- Electronic obscenity is governed by IT Act 67; IPC 292 cannot be used.
- Company not arraigned; officers cannot be prosecuted alone for corporate acts.
Respondent (State)
- Sale/distribution aspects bring 292 IPC into play.
- There is sufficient material to go to trial despite 67 discharge.
Judgment (Held)
- Electronic obscenity is specifically under Section 67 IT Act; the Act has Section 81 overriding effect.
- IPC 292 is primarily for non-electronic media; applying it here would defeat the special statute.
- Allowing 292 prosecution post 67 discharge creates inconsistency and double pursuit for the same act.
- Intermediary (s.79) protection applies absent actual knowledge or failure to act on legal orders.
- Corporate liability: company must be arraigned; officers cannot be singled out without the company.
- Result: 292 IPC prosecution set aside; offences in electronic form must proceed under the IT Act framework.
Ratio
Special law prevails. For obscenity in electronic form, apply the IT Act. Its overriding clause bars parallel use of general IPC provisions for the same conduct.
Why It Matters
- Separates cyber offences from traditional offences for correct charging.
- Clarifies intermediary safe harbour and corporate arraignment requirements.
Key Takeaways
- Use IT Act 67 for electronic obscenity.
- Section 81 overrides inconsistent laws.
- 292 IPC is not for electronic records in such cases.
- Intermediary protected absent knowledge/inaction.
- Arraign the company to fix officer liability.
- Follow strict interpretation in criminal law.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “E-Obscenity? Think IT.”
- Identify the medium (electronic vs physical).
- Apply the IT Act (67 + 81) for electronic acts.
- Check intermediary & corporate arraignment rules (s.79 & company as accused).
IRAC Outline
Issue
- Whether 292 IPC prosecution can continue after discharge under 67 IT Act for the same electronic act.
Rule
- IT Act is special; Section 81 overrides; strict interpretation avoids double pursuit.
Application
- Conduct was purely electronic; applying IPC 292 would conflict with the special regime.
Conclusion
- 292 IPC set aside; electronic obscenity lies under IT Act only.
Glossary
- Section 67 IT Act
- Punishes publishing/transmitting obscene content in electronic form.
- Section 81 IT Act
- Non-obstante clause giving the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws.
- Section 79 IT Act
- Intermediary safe harbour; conditional immunity from liability.
Student FAQs
Because the IT Act is a special, later statute that directly covers electronic obscenity and overrides inconsistent general laws.
It ends liability for the same electronic act under IPC 292. Other distinct offences, if any, must be independently made out.
Specific court/government directions, or clear notice of unlawful content—then prompt action is required to retain protection.
Corporate liability principles usually require the company to be made an accused before fixing vicarious liability on its officers.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now