Tampering with Computer Source Documents

In one line

Section 65 punishes concealing, destroying or altering computer source code, but only where the code is required to be kept or is maintained by law, and that last condition is what the whole section turns on.

The section

65. Tampering with computer source documents. Whoever knowingly or intentionally conceals, destroys or alters or intentionally or knowingly causes another to conceal, destroy, or alter any computer source code used for a computer, computer programme, computer system or computer network, when the computer source code is required to be kept or maintained by law for the time being in force, shall be punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine which may extend up to two lakh rupees, or with both.

Explanation. For the purposes of this section, "computer source code" means the listing of programmes, computer commands, design and layout and programme analysis of computer resource in any form.

The four requirements

One: the act. Conceal, destroy or alter. Not copy, and not merely access. A person who takes a copy of source code and leaves the original untouched is outside section 65 and is inside section 43(b) with section 66, and inside the Copyright Act.

Two: the mental element. Knowingly or intentionally for the doing, and intentionally or knowingly for causing another to do it. Both words appear, and either suffices.

Three: the subject matter. Computer source code, defined in the Explanation, used for a computer, computer programme, computer system or computer network.

Four, and this is the condition that decides every case: the code must be "required to be kept or maintained by law for the time being in force".

Read that phrase carefully. It is disjunctive. Either the law requires the code to be kept, or the code is in fact maintained by law. Syed Asifuddin turns on that reading.

Syed Asifuddin

Syed Asifuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh High Court, 29 July 2005.

Facts. Reliance Infocomm sold subscribers a third generation handset worth about ten thousand five hundred rupees for an initial payment of about three thousand three hundred and fifty rupees, on terms locking the subscriber to its network for three years. Employees of Tata Teleservices, operating as Tata Indicom, were alleged to be taking those handsets from subscribers who wished to switch, and reprogramming the Electronic Serial Number so that the handset, which was exclusive to Reliance, would work on the Tata network. Sixty-three subscribers had been migrated. A first information report was registered under sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Penal Code, section 65 of this Act, and section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The employees petitioned under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash it.