: November 17, 2010 |
: Cyber Law
| Total Views
: 18611 | Unrated
Offences & Penalties under the Information Technology Act, 2000
The introduction of the internet has brought the tremendous changes in our lives. People of all fields are increasingly using the computers to create, transmit and store information in the electronic form instead of the traditional papers, documents. Information stored in electronic forms has many advantages, it is cheaper, easier to store, easier to retrieve and for speedier to connection. Though it has many advantages, it has been misused by many people in order to gain themselves or for sake or otherwise to harm others. The high and speedier connectivity to the world from any place has developed many crimes and these increased offences led to the need of law for protection. Some countries have been rather been vigilant and formed some laws governing the net. In order to keep in pace with the changing generation, the Indian Parliament passed the law --- Information Technology Act 2000. The IT Act 2000 has been conceptualized on the United Nations Commissions on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law.
The increase rate of technology in computers has led to enactment of Information Technology Act 2000. The converting of the paper work into electronic records, the storage of the electronic data, has led tremendous changed the scenario of the country. The Act further amends the Indian Penal Code, 1860, The Evidence Act, 1872, The Banker’s Book’s Evidence Act, 1891 and The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.
Cyber offences are the unlawful acts which are carried in a very sophisticated manner in which either the computer is the tool or target or both. Cyber crime usually includes:
(a) Unauthorized access of the computers
(b) Data diddling
(c) Virus/worms attack
(d) Theft of computer system
(f) Denial of attacks
(g) Logic bombs
(h) Trojan attacks
(i) Internet time theft
(j) Web jacking
(k) Email bombing
(l) Salami attacks
(m) Physically damaging computer system.
The offences included in the IT Act 2000 are as follows:
1. Tampering with the computer source documents.
2. Hacking with computer system.
3. Publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form.
4. Power of Controller to give directions
5. Directions of Controller to a subscriber to extend facilities to decrypt information
6. Protected system
7. Penalty for misrepresentation
8. Penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy
9. Penalty for publishing Digital Signature Certificate false in certain particulars
10. Publication for fraudulent purpose
11. Act to apply for offence or contravention committed outside India
13. Penalties or confiscation not to interfere with other punishments.
14. Power to investigate offences.
Offences Under The It Act 2000:
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 being time in force, shall be punishable with imprisonment up to three year, or with fine which may extend up to two lakh rupees, or with both.
Explanation: For the purpose 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.
Object: The object of the section is to protect the “intellectual property” invested in the computer. It is an attempt to protect the computer source documents (codes) beyond what is available under the Copyright Law
Essential ingredients of the section:
1. knowingly or intentionally concealing ,
2. knowingly or intentionally destroying,
3. knowingly or intentionally altering,
4. knowingly or intentionally causing others to conceal,
5. knowingly or intentionally causing another to destroy,
6. knowingly or intentionally causing another to alter.
This section extends towards the Copyright Act and helps the companies to protect their source code of their programmes.
Penalties: Section 65 is tried by any magistrate.
This is cognizable and non- bailable offence.
Penalties: Imprisonment up to 3 years and / or
Fine: Two lakh rupees.
1. Frios v/s State of Kerela
Facts: In this case it was declared that the FRIENDS application software as protected system. The author of the application challenged the notification and the constitutional validity of software under Section 70. The court upheld the validity of both.
It included tampering with source code. Computer source code the electronic form, it can be printed on paper.
Held: The court held that Tampering with Source code are punishable with three years jail and or two lakh rupees fine of rupees two lakh rupees for altering, concealing and destroying the source code.
2. Syed Asifuddin case:
Facts: In this case the Tata Indicom employees were arrested for manipulation of the electronic 32- bit number (ESN) programmed into cell phones theft were exclusively franchised to Reliance Infocom.
Held: Court held that Tampering with source code invokes Section 65 of the Information Technology Act.
3. Parliament Attack Case:
Facts: In this case several terrorist attacked on 13 December, 2001Parliament House. In this the Digital evidence played an important role during their prosecution. The accused argued that computers and evidence can easily be tampered and hence should not be relied.
In Parliament case several smart device storage disks and devices, a Laptop were recovered from the truck intercepted at Srinagar pursuant to information given by two suspects. The laptop included the evidence of fake identity cards, video files containing clips of the political leaders with the background of Parliament in the background shot from T.V news channels. In this case design of Ministry of Home Affairs car sticker, there was game “wolf pack” with user name of ‘Ashiq’. There was the name in one of the fake identity cards used by the terrorist. No back up was taken therefore it was challenged in the Court.
Held: Challenges to the accuracy of computer evidence should be established by the challenger. Mere theoretical and generic doubts cannot be cast on the evidence.
Section66. Hacking with the computer system:
(1) Whoever with the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person destroys or deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means, commits hacking.
(2) Whoever commits hacking shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine which may extend up to two lakh rupees, or with both.
Explanation: The section tells about the hacking activity.
Essential ingredients of the section:
1. Whoever with intention or knowledge.
2. Causing wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person.
3. Destroying or altering any information residing in a computer resource.
4. Or diminishes its value or utility or.
5. Affects it injuriously by any means.
Penalties: Punishment: Imprisoned up to three years and
Fine: which may extend up to two lakh rupees.Or with both.
1. R v/s Gold & Schifreen
In this case it is observed that the accused gained access to the British telecom Prestl Gold computers networks file amount to dishonest trick and not criminal offence.
2. R v/s Whiteley.
In this case the accused gained unauthorized access to the Joint Academic Network (JANET) and deleted, added files and changed the passwords to deny access to the authorized users.
The perspective of the section is not merely protect the information but to protect the integrity and security of computer resources from attacks by unauthorized person seeking to enter such resource, whatever may be the intention or motive.
Cases Reported In India:
Official website of Maharastra government hacked.
The official website of the government of Maharashtra was hacked by Hackers Cool Al- Jazeera, and claimed them they were from Saudi Arabia.
Section 67. Publishing of obscene information in electronic form:
Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstance, to read see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees.
Essential ingredients of this section:
1. Publishing or transmitting, or causing to be published, pornographic material in electronic form.
Penalties: Punishment: (1) On first conviction --- imprisonment which may extend up to five years.
Fine: up to on first conviction which may extend to one lakh rupees.
(2) On second conviction ---- imprisonment up to which may extend to ten years and Fine which may extend up to two lakh rupees.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu v/s Suhas Katti.
Facts: This case is about posting obscene, defamatory and annoying message about a divorcee woman in the Yahoo message group. E-mails were forwarded to the victim for information by the accused through a false e- mail account opened by him in the name of the victim. These postings resulted in annoying phone calls to the lady. Based on the complaint police nabbed the accused. He was a known family friend of the victim and was interested in marrying her. She married to another person, but that marriage ended in divorce and the accused started contacting her once again. And her reluctance to marry him he started harassing her through internet.
Held: The accused is found guilty of offences under section 469, 509 IPC and 67 of IT Act 2000 and the accused is convicted and is sentenced for the offence to undergo RI for 2 years under 469 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/-and for the offence u/s 509 IPC sentenced to undergo 1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and for the offence u/s 67 of IT Act 2000 to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.4000/- All sentences to run concurrently.”
The accused paid fine amount and he was lodged at Central Prison, Chennai. This is considered the first case convicted under section 67 of Information Technology Act 2000 in India.
2. In a recent case, a groom's family received numerous emails containing defamatory information about the prospective bride. Fortunately, they did not believe the emails and chose to take the matter to the police. The sender of the emails turned out to be the girl's step-father, who did not want the girl to get married, as he would have lost control over her property, of which he was the legal guardian.
2. Avnish Bajaj (CEO of bazzee.com – now a part of the eBay group of companies) case.
Facts: There were three accused first is the Delhi school boy and IIT Kharagpur Ravi Raj and the service provider Avnish Bajaj.
The law on the subject is very clear. The sections slapped on the three accused were Section 292 (sale, distribution, public exhibition, etc., of an obscene object) and Section 294 (obscene acts, songs, etc., in a public place) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 67 (publishing information which is obscene in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act 2000. In addition, the schoolboy faces a charge under Section 201 of the IPC (destruction of evidence), for there is apprehension that he had destroyed the mobile phone that he used in the episode. These offences invite a stiff penalty, namely, imprisonment ranging from two to five years, in the case of a first time conviction, and/or fines.
Held: In this case the Service provider Avnish Bajaj was later acquitted and the Delhi school boy was granted bail by Juvenile Justice Board and was taken into police charge and detained into Observation Home for two days.
4. DASKHINA Kannada police have solved the first case of cyber crime in the district.
A press release by Dakshina Kannada Police said here on Saturday that a Father at a Christian institution in the city had approached the Superintendent of Police with a complaint that he was getting offensive and obscene e-mails.
Police said that all the three admitted that they had done this to tarnish the image of the Father. As the three tendered an unconditional apology to the Father and gave a written undertaking that they would not repeat such act in future, the complainant withdrew his complaint. Following this, the police dropped the charges against the culprit.
The release said that sending of offensive and obscene e-mails is an offence under the Indian Information Technology Act 2000. If the charges are framed.
Section 68. Power of controller to give directions:
(1) The Controller may, by order, direct a Certifying Authority or any employee of such Authority to take such measures or cease carrying on such activities as specified in the order if those are necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act, rules or any regulations made there under.
(2) Any person who fails to comply with any order under sub-section (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding two lakh rupees or to both.
Explanation: Any person who fails to comply with any order under sub section (1) of the above section, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be convicted for a term not less then three years or to a fine exceeding two lakh rupees or to both.
The under this section is non-bailable & cognizable.
Penalties: Punishment: imprisonment up to a term not exceeding three years
Fine: not exceeding two lakh rupees.
Section 69. Directions of Controller to a subscriber to extend facilities to decrypt information:
(1) If the Controller is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence; for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the Government to intercept any information transmitted through any computer resource.
(2) The subscriber or any person in charge of the computer resource shall, when called upon by any agency which has been directed under sub-section (1), extend all facilities and technical assistance to decrypt the information.
(3) The subscriber or any person who fails to assist the agency referred to in subsection
(2) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years.
Penalties: Punishment: imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years.
The offence is cognizable and non- bailable.
Section 70. Protected System:
(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that any computer, computer system or computer network to be a protected system.
(2) The appropriate Government may, by order in writing, authorize the persons who are authorized to access protected systems notified under sub-section (1).
(3) Any person who secures access or attempts to secure access to a protected system in contravention of the provision of this section shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: This section grants the power to the appropriate government to declare any computer, computer system or computer network, to be a protected system. Only authorized person has the right to access to protected system.
Penalties: Punishment: the imprisonment which may extend to ten years and fine.
Section 71. Penalty for misrepresentation:
(1) Whoever makes any misrepresentation to, or suppresses any material fact from, the Controller or the Certifying Authority for obtaining any license or Digital Signature Certificate, as the case may be, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or which fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.
Penalties: Punishment: imprisonment which may extend to two years
Fine: may extend to one lakh rupees or with both.
Section 72. Penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy:
Save as otherwise provide in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person who, in pursuance of any of the powers conferred under this Act, rules or regulation made there under, has secured assess to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material without the consent of the person concerned discloses such material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.
Explanation: This section relates to any to nay person who in pursuance of any of the powers conferred by the Act or it allied rules and regulations has secured access to any: Electronic record, books, register, correspondence, information, document, or other material.
If such person discloses such information, he will be punished with punished. It would not apply to disclosure of personal information of a person by a website, by his email service provider.
Penalties: Punishment: term which may extend to two years.
Fine: one lakh rupees or with both.
Section 73. Penalty for publishing Digital Signature Certificate false in certain particulars:
(1) No person shall publish a Digital Signature Certificate or otherwise make it available to any other person with the knowledge that-
(a) The Certifying Authority listed in the certificate has not issued it; or
(b) The subscriber listed in the certificate has not accepted it; or
(c) The certificate has been revoked or suspended, unless such publication is for the purpose of verifying a digital signature created prior to such suspension or revocation.
(2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.
Explanation: The Certifying Authority listed in the certificate has not issued it or,
The subscriber listed in the certificate has not accepted it or the certificate has been revoked or suspended.
The Certifying authority may also suspend the Digital Signature Certificate if it is of the opinion that the digital signature certificate should be suspended in public interest.
A digital signature may not be revoked unless the subscriber has been given opportunity of being heard in the matter. On revocation the Certifying Authority need to communicate the same with the subscriber. Such publication is not an offence it is the purpose of verifying a digital signature created prior to such suspension or revocation.
Penalties: Punishment imprisonment of a term of which may extend to two years.
Fine: fine may extend to 1 lakh rupees or with both.
1. Bennett Coleman & Co. v/s Union of India.
In this case the publication has been stated that ‘publication means dissemination and circulation’. In the context of digital medium, the term publication includes and transmission of information or data in electronic form.
Section 74. Publication for fraudulent purpose:
Whoever knowingly creates, publishes or otherwise makes available a Digital Signature Certificate for any fraudulent or unlawful purpose shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.
Explanation: This section prescribes punishment for the following acts:
Knowingly creating a digital signature certificate for any
i. fraudulent purpose or,
ii. unlawful purpose.
Knowingly publishing a digital signature certificate for any
i. fraudulent purpose or
ii. unlawful purpose
Knowingly making available a digital signature certificate for any
i. fraudulent purpose or
ii. unlawful purpose.
Penalties: Punishment: imprisonment for a term up to two years.
Fine: up to one lakh or both.
Section 75. Act to apply for offence or contravention committed outside India:
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall apply also to any offence or contravention committed outside India by any person irrespective of his nationality.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), this Act shall apply to an offence or
Contravention committed outside India by any person if the act or conduct constituting the offence or contravention involves a computer, computer system or computer network located in India.
Explanation: This section has broader perspective including cyber crime, committed by cyber criminals, of any nationality, any territoriality.
R v/s Governor of Brixton prison and another.
Facts: In this case the Citibank faced the wrath of a hacker on its cash management system, resulting in illegal transfer of funds from customers account in to the accounts of the hacker, later identified as Valdimer Levin and his accomplices. After Levin was arrested he was extradite to the United States. One of the most important issues was jurisdictional issue, the ‘place of origin’ of the cyber crime.
Held: The Court helds that the real- time nature of the communication link between Levin and Citibank computer meant that Levin’s keystrokes were actually occurring on the Citibank computer.
It is thus important that in order to resolve the disputes related to jurisdiction, the issue of territoriality and nationality must be placed by a much broader criteria embracing principles of reasonableness and fairness to accommodate overlapping or conflicting interests of states, in spirit of universal jurisdiction.
Section 76. Confiscation:
Any computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks, tape drives or any other accessories related thereto, in respect of which any provisions of this Act, rules, orders or regulations made there under has been or is being contravened, shall be liable to confiscation :
Provided that where it is established to the satisfaction of the court adjudicating the confiscation that the person in whose possession, power or control of any such computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks, tape drives or any other accessories relating thereto is found is not responsible for the contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules orders or regulations made there under, the court may, instead of making an order for confiscation of such computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks, tape drives or any other accessories related thereto, make such other order authorized by this Act against the person contravening of the provisions of this Act, rules, orders or regulations made there under as it may think fit.
Explanation: The aforesaid section highlights that all devices whether computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks, tape drives or any other storage, communication, input or output device which helped in the contravention of any provision of this Act, rules, orders, or regulations made under there under liable to be confiscated.
77. Penalties or confiscation not to interfere with other punishments:
No penalty imposed or confiscation made under this Act shall prevent the imposition of any other punishment to which the person affected thereby is liable under any other law for the time being in force.
Explanation: The aforesaid section lays down a mandatory condition, which states the Penalties or confiscation not to interfere with other punishments to which the person affected thereby is liable under any other law for the time being in force.
78. Power to investigate offences:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall investigate any offence under this Act.
Explanation: The police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of police shall investigate the offence.
Due to the increase in the digital technology various offences has also increased. Since new-new technology come everyday, the offences has also increased therefore the IT Act 2000 need to be amended in order to include those offences which are now not included in the Act.
In India cyber crime is of not of high rate therefore we have time in order to tighten the cyber laws and include the offences which are now not included in the IT Act 2000.
Law relating to patents, trademarks, copyright, designs and geographical indications------- by WADEHRA.
Intellectual property law --------- by P. NARAYAN.
The author can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Is FDI really going to be beneficial for India?
Affirmative Position : Yes, FDI Will
be Beneficial for India, I am for it because....
Negative Position :
No, FDI Will NOT be Beneficial for India I am against FDI because...
Post your argument
Dr.Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
Was established by an Act of Govt.of Uttar Pradesh in 2005, U.P.Act No.28
of 2005 and came into being on 4th of January 2006 to meet up the new
challenges in legal field and to strengthen the vision that was given by
the establishment of first National Law School of the country....
here to see a list of Top law colleges in the world
| Posted by nllljala on May 18, 2013
| Posted by shobhna on December 09, 2010
its quite good but less informative...
this article give description about the anti terrorism laws in india, what are the flaws in law, myth and their reality about law...
| » Total Articles
| » Total Authors
| » Total Views
| » Total categories