Unauthorised Recording & Sharing Of Official Conversation Is Cyber Crime, Rules Bombay High Court

Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court has held that unauthorised recording and sharing of internal official conversations attracts criminal liability under cyber law, allowing trial under Information Technology Act, while quashing espionage charges under Official Secrets Act. The case involved charges against a Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation Ltd employee.Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke partly allowed the plea seeking quashing of an FIR registered at Sadar police station in 2019, observing that allegations pointed to unlawful handling of official communication rather than any act prejudicial to national security."The petitioner employee has not only recorded communication between two officials, but also shared the same, which amounts to unauthorised communication," the court said last week, noting the conduct went beyond the employee's assigned duty of connecting conference calls between senior officials.The case arose from allegations that the employee recorded a conference call between senior MahaMetro officials and shared it with another colleague. The FIR invoked provisions of both Information Technology Act and Official Secrets Act.Clarifying the legal position, the court held such acts fall within the scope of Section 43 of IT Act, which deals with unauthorised access and extraction of data. "The allegations relate to use of communication by the employee by recording the conference call without permission, falls within the purview of Section 43 of the IT Act and will attract punishment under Section 66," the judge observed.Rejecting the argument that the act amounted only to departmental misconduct, the court ruled that unauthorised recording and dissemination of official data is a cyber offence. It further clarified that incorrect invocation of a provision does not invalidate the prosecution if the offence is otherwise made out.The court also relied on cyber forensic evidence, including audio clips, call logs and digital exchanges recovered from seized devices, which prima facie established the charges against the employee.However, the bench found the application of the Official Secrets Act misplaced. It held the incident did not involve a "prohibited place" nor any element affecting sovereignty or national security.Accordingly, the court quashed the FIR and chargesheet to the extent of the offence under Official Secrets Act, while allowing prosecution under Sections 66 and 66(B) of Information Technology Act.Key takeaways from HC verdict:Unauthorised recording & sharing of official calls can attract criminal liability under IT ActActs fall under Section 43, punishable under Section 66 if done dishonestlyInternal data breach is not merely departmental misconduct but can be a cyber offenceWrong invocation of Section 66(B) does not invalidate FIR if offence is otherwise made outCyber forensic evidence played crucial role in establishing involvementOfficial Secrets Act applies only to acts affecting national security or sovereigntyRecording internal calls cannot be equated with threats to State securityProsecution to continue under IT Act provisions against the accused