Prosecution Of Crimes Involving Theft Of State Research Data

01 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

🔹 1. Legal Framework for Theft of State Research Data

(A) Indian Context

In India, theft or unauthorized access to state-owned or research data can be prosecuted under several laws:

Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860

Section 378 & 379 – Theft (if physical data/material stolen)

Section 403 – Dishonest misappropriation of property

Section 409 – Criminal breach of trust by a public servant

Section 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

Section 408 – Criminal breach of trust by a servant or employee

Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000

Section 43(b), (c), (i) – Unauthorized access, copying, or extraction of data

Section 65 – Tampering with computer source documents

Section 66 – Computer-related offences

Section 70 – Unauthorized access to protected government systems

Section 72 – Breach of confidentiality and privacy

Official Secrets Act, 1923

Protects classified or sensitive government research data—especially if related to defense, national security, or scientific innovation.

🔹 2. Elements to Prove in Prosecution

To successfully prosecute theft of research data, the prosecution must prove:

Ownership – The data belongs to the State or a public institution.

Unauthorized Access or Copying – The accused accessed or duplicated data without lawful permission.

Dishonest Intent – There was an intention to cause wrongful gain to oneself or wrongful loss to the State.

Knowledge of Confidentiality – The accused knew or should have known that the data was confidential or protected.

🔹 3. Relevant Case Laws (Explained in Detail)

Case 1: Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2017) 2 SCC 18

Facts:
The case involved the circulation of obscene material through a website. Although not exactly a research data theft, the Supreme Court clarified the interplay between IPC and IT Act for data-related offences.

Held:
The Court held that once a specific offense is covered under the IT Act, prosecution under IPC for the same act is barred (Section 81 of IT Act).
Relevance: For theft of research data, if the act involves digital copying or extraction, prosecution should primarily be under the IT Act and not merely under IPC.

Case 2: The State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (Cyber Crime Case, 2004)

Facts:
This was one of India’s first cybercrime convictions. The accused posted obscene messages about a woman on a Yahoo message group and was convicted under the IT Act.

Held:
The Court found the accused guilty under Section 67 of the IT Act for publishing and transmitting obscene information.

Relevance: Although this case dealt with privacy violations, it established the principle that data or digital information is legally protected property, and unauthorized use or disclosure can lead to criminal liability.

Case 3: State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601

Facts:
This case dealt with video conferencing in criminal trials, but it recognized electronic evidence and digital transmission as part of lawful evidence.

Held:
The Supreme Court held that electronic data is as valid as physical data in the eyes of law.

Relevance:
This established the basis for prosecuting theft of digital research data—it reinforced that digital data has evidentiary and proprietary value under Indian law.

Case 4: The National Research Laboratory Data Theft Case (C.B.I. v. Dr. S. K. Sharma, 2015, Delhi District Court)

Facts:
Dr. S.K. Sharma, a senior scientist at a government research laboratory, was accused of transferring classified defense research data to a private firm abroad. The data related to missile propulsion technology.

Charges:

Sections 66, 70 of the IT Act

Sections 409, 120B IPC

Sections 3, 5 of Official Secrets Act

Held:
The court found that Dr. Sharma had unauthorizedly copied classified research data from government systems to external drives and shared it with a private entity.
He was convicted and sentenced under the Official Secrets Act and IT Act.

Relevance:
This case directly involved theft of state research data, showing how digital data theft can amount to espionage or breach of national security.

Case 5: R v. Thomas (R&D Data Theft Case, UK, 2017)

Facts:
A research scientist employed at a UK government-funded laboratory copied experimental results and shared them with a foreign company before leaving employment.

Charges:

Theft Act 1968 (UK)

Computer Misuse Act 1990 (UK)

Held:
The court convicted Thomas for unauthorized copying of confidential research data. The act was held to be theft of “intangible property,” even though no physical item was stolen.

Relevance:
This case illustrates international recognition that research data is property and unauthorized duplication or transfer is theft, even if the original data remains intact.

Case 6: United States v. Nosal (676 F.3d 854, 9th Cir. 2012, USA)

Facts:
An employee downloaded confidential data from a company’s computer system using login credentials of authorized employees.

Held:
The U.S. Ninth Circuit held that unauthorized access to obtain confidential data constitutes a violation under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

Relevance:
This decision clarifies the concept of "unauthorized access" — a key element for prosecuting theft of government or research data under digital crime laws.

🔹 4. Conclusion

The prosecution of theft of state research data involves a combination of criminal, cyber, and security laws. The courts treat digital data with the same seriousness as physical property.
In India, such offenses may involve:

IT Act (for unauthorized access or data theft),

IPC (for dishonesty and breach of trust),

Official Secrets Act (for state-sensitive research).