NISHANT S/O PRADEEP AGRAWAL v. ANTI TERRORIST SQUAD, LUCKNOW, THR. INVESTIGATING OFFICER, UTTAR PRADESH AND 1
Appeal Against Conviction - Lack of Mens Rea in Cyber Terrorism and Official Secrets Act Offences; Partial Relief Granted, Negligence Conviction Upheld.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:13335-DB
Decision Date: 01-12-2025
List of Laws
The Information Technology Act, 2000; The Official Secrets Act, 1923; The Code of Criminal Procedure; The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Case Brief
- Facts: Nishant Agrawal, an employee at BrahMos Aerospace, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for offences under Section 66-F of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 3(1)(c), 5(1)(a), (b), (c), and (d) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The prosecution alleged that Agrawal leaked sensitive data related to BrahMos missiles to foreign agents via social media, compromising national security. The prosecution's case rested on the premise that Agrawal had unauthorizedly copied secret files onto his personal laptop and downloaded malware.
- Procedural Posture: Agrawal appealed his conviction to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenging the legality and validity of the trial court's judgment.
- Issue: Did the prosecution successfully prove beyond reasonable doubt that Agrawal committed offences under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 3(1)(c), 5(1)(a), (b), (c), and (d) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, specifically considering the requirement of mens rea and the evidence presented?
- Holding: The High Court partly allowed the appeal, quashing the conviction and sentence under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 3(1)(c), 5(1)(a), (b), and (c) and 5(3) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, but maintained the conviction and sentence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
- Reasoning: The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary mens rea (guilty mind) required for offences under Section 66F of the IT Act and Sections 3(1)(c), 5(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Official Secrets Act. The evidence suggested that Agrawal downloaded malware to seek job opportunities in the UK, not to intentionally leak sensitive data. The prosecution also failed to prove that Agrawal unauthorizedly accessed and copied the data with the intent to threaten national security. The Court noted that much of the information was already in the public domain and that Agrawal's superiors had authorized his access to the data. However, the Court upheld the conviction under Section 5(1)(d) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, indicating a failure to take reasonable care in handling sensitive information. The court drew an adverse inference against the prosecution for not examining Alan Abraham, Agrawal's superior, who could have clarified the authorization and access to the data.