Justice Nagaprasanna emphasised the urgent need for technically trained officers and forensic experts to handle such sophisticated offences, calling the current state of affairs a "miscarriage of justice".
Published Apr 29, 2025 | 1:27 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 29, 2025 | 1:27 PM
Drawing of a combat drone. (iStock)
Synopsis: The Karnataka High Court ordered the constitution of an SIT to probe the alleged theft of sensitive drone technology data from a Bengaluru-based aerospace and defence company. The petitioner argued that the act went beyond commercial theft and posed a threat to national security, branding it a “cyber espionage” case.
The Karnataka High Court ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the alleged theft of sensitive drone technology data from NewSpace Research and Technologies, a Bengaluru-based aerospace and defence company.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the writ petition, passed a 30-page order on 25 April, directing that the case — filed under various provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) — be reinvestigated by an SIT. It will be headed by Director General of Police (DGP) Pranab Mohanty, along with IPS officers Bhushan Gulab Rao Borase and Nisha James.
NewSpace Research and Technologies works closely with the Indian Army, Air Force, Navy, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
The company had filed a complaint on 24 December 2024, alleging that three of its former employees — Prabhat Sharma, Anirudh Putsala, and Akash Patil — had stolen proprietary data. This included drone source codes and CAD (Computer Aided Design). It is being alleged that the accused shared data with a rival company, Lenviz Technologies Pvt Ltd, to develop competing products and secure defence contracts.
The petitioner argued that the act went beyond commercial theft and posed a threat to national security, branding it a “cyber espionage” case. What made matters more serious was that the accused were not arrested for nearly three months after the FIR was registered.
Even though an arrest memo was prepared on 25 December 2024, the accused were curiously let off with a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which is meant for appearance notices, not post-arrest procedures.
The case also took a serious turn when the original Investigating Officer (IO) was later suspended for accepting bribes in an unrelated matter, further eroding confidence in the integrity of the probe.
A Court Commissioner’s report revealed attempts to obstruct a court-ordered search. Officials were allegedly threatened by individuals claiming to be senior police officers, including a DCP from Jaipur and an ACP from Bengaluru. Surveillance cameras were reported to be remotely activated during the raid, suggesting the accused were monitoring the investigation team in real-time.
Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the case reflects the evolution of crime in the digital age and sharply criticised the inadequacy of traditional investigative approaches to complex cyber crimes. He emphasised the urgent need for technically trained officers and forensic experts to handle such sophisticated offences, calling the current state of affairs a “miscarriage of justice”.
The judgment observed, “The crimes over the years have emerged in different hues and forms. In this digital age where crime knows no borders and malfeasance is coded with keystrokes, the tools of conduct of investigation of such emerging crimes must evolve. An ordinary Investigating Officer or a conventional Investigating Officer would not be so equipped with such emerging crimes to decode the labyrinth of cyber crimes.”
It further added, “The subject crime has the colour of a cyber espionage. It is a multi-layered crime involving nuances of defence technology and concerns of national defence. Investigations into such crimes demand not merely procedural competence, but an amalgamation of technical expertise and forensic acumen. It is a lamentable reality that conventional Investigating Officers who are trained for the crimes of yesterday would undoubtedly find themselves ill-equipped to grapple with cyber crimes.”
The court noted that the investigation of crimes of such magnitude cannot be done by the current IO due to a lack of technical expertise.
“I have no manner of doubt that an ordinary investigation would amount to a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, this court, not only finds it appropriate but imperative to constitute a special investigation team, as scales of justice must not tilt due to incompetence of investigating officers. If the crimes are sophisticated, the investigating officers too shall be,” noted Justice Nagaprasana.
The court mentioned that in today’s digital age, cybercrimes have replaced traditional crimes like theft and robbery, adding that such crimes are committed with just a few keystrokes, making them harder to detect and investigate.
“The state thus must recognise the existential threat and evolve, failing which, justice to those victims will become a mirage. It is again in public domain that the State of Karnataka, recognising the huge problem of cybercrime, has in fact come up with a novel idea of a cyber command centre, to be headed by an officer of the rank of the Director General of Police. If a cyber command centre is established to combat cyber crimes and strengthen cyber security, it would usher in a new beginning of tackling the new age crime with new age investigating centres. This is the paradigm shift that is imperative,” the court said.
“Such cyber command centres should be made meaningfully functional by appropriate officers manning such cyber command centres. It is only then that the state will leap forward to tackle the emergence and growth of cybercrime, failing which, the citizen who has been a victim of cybercrime or cyber fraud will never get justice,” it added.
“Therefore, the state shall endeavour to give life to the cyber command centres or constitute a separate wing to tackle cyber crime like the CCB [Central Crime Branch], which could be a cyber crime investigation bureau. The aforesaid direction has become imperative for the reasons indicated hereinabove. Such an Investigating Agency will be a pioneer in the new age crime by a new age investigative branch,” the court noted.
The Chief Secretary, Home Department, and the DGP have been instructed to report progress on this initiative during the next hearing on 2 July 2025. The court asked the SIT to submit its report within three months from the date it is constituted, and a copy of the same be placed before it.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
