Computer Source Code Theft Vs. Infringement of Copyright
Theft of computer source code & Registered Copyright
Judgment dated 9.9.2026 of the TDSAT in Cyber Appeal No.1 of 2020 with MA No.266 of 203 of Aditya Dhananjay Satwe and another Vs. Smt.Sheela Balram Sharma and another with connected cyber appeal.
On 11.4.2014, the complaint was filed under section 43, 61, 66 read with 66B of the IT Act, on the allegations that the present appellant no.1 who was employee had stolen computer source code during his employment with complainant and developed his own software CARE, by using the same source code from Pharma SYS+, thereby had caused substantial loss to the complainant.
The Adjudicating Officer had granted compensation of Rs.10 lakhs to the respondent no.1 complainant. There was a further direction restraining appellants to sell CARE software to any further or to install the same. Rather, to get it uninstalled from the customers’ devices, to whom it was sold.
The appellants filed the Cyber Appeal under Sections 57 and 58 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The appellants that the complaint was filed owing to a business rivalry, they have developed their own software in ‘Visual Foxpro’ and obtained the copyright certificate from Registrar of Copyright, Delhi, whereas, complainant’s software was said to be developed in ‘Foxpro DOS’ base platform.
The Adjudicating Officer had taken the documents of police investigation and the cyber expert report, into consideration. Moreso, the above police investigation report, or the documents obtained therein, were not admissible, as evidence in this proceeding of civil nature.
HELD that the Adjudicating Officer has taken in account the report of cyber university expert, filed in criminal proceeding of investigation of alleged offence, without affording opportunity for making that report admissible in evidence. The prima facie appearance of that report is with no finding of any theft; rather is of match to the tune of about 80% and the specific finding is of development of software in CARE software. No fact is there that the Pharma SYS software was of ‘Foxpro DOS’ platform and this CARE software is of ‘Visual Foxpro’ platform, which is admittedly, a window platform.
Hence, without commenting on the merit of the case, these appeals merit to be allowed, on the basis of those deficiencies written above, with order of remand to Learned Adjudicating Officer, for giving opportunity afresh to both sides for placing their pleadings before it, then making points for determination, then opportunity for evidence to both sides, then hearing opportunity and then making the judgment alongwith reasons for coming to conclusion.
