Offences Under Information Technology

Act, 2000

Introduction
Information Technology Act, 2000 was enacted on 17th May, 2000 to provide legal
recognition for electronic transactions and facilitate E-commerce. It was later amended by
passing Information Technology (amendment) Act, 2008.

Object

Classification of offences under IT Act, 2000

The increased rate of technology in computers has led to the enactment of Information
Technology Act 2000. The converting of the paperwork into electronic records, the storage of
the electronic data, has tremendously changed the scenario of the country.

Chapter XI of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with cyber offences in which two
elements are important, actus reus (the act) and the mens rea (mental intention to commit a
crime). As the IT Act is a special law on information technology it is related to offences that
use Information Technology to commit the crime or as a target of the crime. The general law
of Indian Penal Code, 1860 applies in many cases in addition to IT Act 2000 in cyber
offences or where there are no specific provisions expressly mentioned in IT Act, 2000. For
example, in case of online defamation, section 500 could apply alongwith Section 66 A of the
IT Act, 2000.
The offences under IT Act 2000 are as follows;

Section 66- computer Section 66 C – Section 66 F – cyber section 67 C –

related offences identity theft terrorism preservation of data
by intermediary
Section 66 A – Section 66 D – Section 67 A – Section 70- protected
sending offensive cheating by material with systems
messages personation sexually explicit acts
Section 66 B – Section 66 E – Section 67 B – child Section 72 A –
receiving stolen violation of Privacy pornography disclosure of
computer resourse. information in breach
of lawful contract.

Section 77 B of IT Act, 2000 provides that all offences that are punishable with imprisonment
of three years and above are cognizable and offences punishable with imprisonment of three
years are bailable. Section 77 A prescribes for compounding of offences except for which
punishment is for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding three years. As per Section 77 A
proviso, the court will not compound an offence when an accused is liable under previous
conviction to enhanced punishment or punishment of different kind or if it affects socio
economic condition of a country or if an offence is committed against a child below 18 years
or a woman. The power to investigate IT offences vests with an inspector and above.

Section 65. Tampering with computer source documents

Section 65 talks about punishment for knowingly or intentionally concealing, destroying, or
altering or intentionally or knowingly causing another to conceal, destroy or alter a computer
source code used for a computer when source code is required to be kept or maintained by
law for the time being in force. Tampering with computer source documents is punishable
with imprisonment upto three years, or fine which may extend to two lakhs or with both.

Explanation to the Section states that computer source code means listing of programmes,
computer commands, design and layout and programme analysis of computer resource in any
form.
Essential ingredients
The essential ingredients of this section are as follows:

1. knowingly or intentionally :
i. concealing,
ii. destroying,
iii. altering,
iv. causing another to conceal,
v. causing another to destroy,
vi. causing another to alter,
2. a computer source code which is used for a computer
3. such source code is required to be kept or maintained by law for the time being in
force.

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 beyond what is available under the
Copyright Law.

This is usually a non-bailable offence in India and tried by any magistrate.

Case laws
1. Syed Asifuddin

In this case the employees of the Tata Indicom were arrested by government officials for the
manipulation of an electronic 32-bit number program. The program exclusively franchised to
Reliance Infocom was added into cell phones for theft by the hackers. The court held that
tampering with source code invokes Section 65 of the Information Technology Act and
applied the punishment as provided.

2. Case: Parliament Attack Case

in this case several terrorist attacked on 13 December, 2001 Parliament House. In this the
Digital evidence played an important role during their prosecution. The accused argued that
computers an 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 of shot from T.V. news
channels. In this case design of ministry of home affairs car sticker. There was the name in
one of the fake identity cards used by the terrorist found.

It was held by Supreme Court “ Challenges to the accuracy of computer evidence should be
established by the challenger. Mere theoretical and generic doubts cannot be cast on the
evidence.

Section 66. computer related offences

This Section provides that if any person dishonestly or fraudulently commits any act
mentioned in section 43, such person is punishable with imprisonment for a term that may
extend to three years or with fine which may extend to 5 lakh rupees or both.

The cyber offences under Section 66 are read with Section 43 and include :

a. Unauthorized access to a computer (section 43 (a) )

b. Data theft ( section 43 (b) )
c. Introduction of virus ( section 43 (c) )
d. Damage to computer, database etc. (section 43 (d) )
e. Disruption of any computer, system or network (section 43 (e) )
f. Denial of access attack ( section 43 (f) )
g. Abetment in violation of Act (section 43 (g) )
h. Time theft (section 43 (h) )
i. Stealing, concealing or alteration or destruction of computer source code with
intention to cause damage.

The word “dishonestly” bears the same meaning as in Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 wherein “dishonestly” means ‘whoever does anything with the intention of wrongful
gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person is said to do that thing dishonestly’.

The term ‘fraudulently’ means same as Section 25 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. As per
Section 25 of IPC, a person commits an act fraudulently if he does so with intention to
defraud and not otherwise. The punishment in Section 66 has been amended with an increase
in fine from 2 lakhs to 5 lakhs by the IT (Amendment) Act,2008.

The term ‘hacking’ has not been used under Section 66 of IT Act, 2000 after IT (
amendment) Act 2008. The term now used is computer related offences which has much
wider connotations. The scope of the section is enlarged to include acts earlier known as
hacking, i.e. intentionally or knowingly causing wrongful loss to public or a person destroys,
alters, deletes any information residing in a computer or affects it injuriously.

Case laws
Case: Abhinav Gupta v. State of Haryana

In this an employee alleged to have hacked into a computer system of his past employer and
stolen confidential information and copyrighted drawings of the complainant and disclosed
the same to a competitor company. His petition for anticipatory bail was rejected. The
screenshots of his email inbox were produced by complainant in the court as evidence. The
court took the view that such acts prima facie amounted to hacking under Section 66 of the IT
Act, 2000.

Section 66 A. punishment for sending offensive messages through communication

service, etc.
Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 states that any person who sends, by
means of a computer resource or a communication device, -

a. Any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

b. Any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing
annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation,
enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a
communication device,
c. Any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance
or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the
origin of such messages,
 Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and
with fine.

Constitutional validity
Case : Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

In this a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Apex Court challenging
constitutionality of Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 wherein State of
Maharashtra was called upon to explain the manner of arrest of two muslim girls for writing
posts on facebook relating to closure of Mumbai over Bal Thackeray’s death. Here the
Supreme Court said that “Section 66 A affects right of people to know, hence violates Article
19 (1) (a) of the constitution beyond the extent permissible under Article 19 (2)”, hence,
struck down in its entirely.

The supreme court further said “ Section 66 A is unconstitutional on ground of being vague
and not providing manageable standards”.

Section 66B. punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or

communication device
If a person dishonestly receives or retains any stolen computer resource or communication
device, Section 66 B of Information Technology Act prescribes punishment of imprisonment
upto three (3) years or fine upto one (1) lakh or both.

If any person committed the offence mentioned in this section he may in addition to this
section made liable under Section 410 of IPC.

Section 66 C and Section 66 D. Identity Theft and Cheating by pesonation

In case a person commits identity theft by fraudulently using electronic signature, password
or other unique identification feature of another person, such person is liable for punishment
of imprisonment upto three years and fine upto one lac or both.

The section 66 D is imitation of section 419 & 420 of IPC.

Section 66 E. Invasion of privacy
If any person intentionally or with due knowledge captures any image or transmits/ publishes
(in print or electronically) any images of a private area of a person without the person’s
consent that violates the privacy of such person. Such illegal acts are punishable under
Section 66 E with imprisonment of upto three years or fine upto 2 lakhs or both.

This applies particularly with respect to MMS clips that are transmitted or published online if
it invades privacy of person within the meaning of this Section.

Section 66 F – Cyber Terrorism

Section 66 F provides punishment for Cyber Terrorism. This Section is divided into two
parts. First part of this section defines the term ‘cyber terrorism’ and the second part of this
section provides the punishment for the same. First part of Section 66 F is also divided into
two parts named Section 66 F (1) (a) and Section 66 F (1) (b).

Section 66 F (1) (a) provides If any person with intention to threaten sovereignty, integrity,
security or unity of India or to strike terror in the people causes denial of service attacks ( that
is where overloading of mails/spamming leads to disruption or damage to computer networks
which makes them malfunction ) or access a computer without permission or exceeds the
authority given or introduces any computer virus or other contaminant which is likely to
cause or causes death or injury to persons or destroys property or supplies or services
essential to public life or adversely affects critical information infrastructure ( which are
sensitive systems of the government) commits the offence of cyber terrorism.

Section 66 F(1) (B) provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally accesses a
computer resource without authorization or exceeds the authorization and steals information
that is sensitive to our nation‘s security, foreign relations, or such information that is likely to
cause injury to integrity, security, sovereignty of India or friendly relations with foreign states
or public order, decency or morality ,or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
incitement to an offence or to advantage any foreign nation , or group of individuals commits
cyber terrorism.

Sub-section 2 of Section 66 F states whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism

shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life.
Section 67. Publishing Obscene Material
This Section provides punishment for transmitting or publishing obscene content
electronically. Such act is punishable with imprisonment of term that may extend to three
years or fine of upto 5 lacs or both.

Case :Bazee.com case

In the above case a video clip containing obscene material was listed on the Bazee.com site
for sale concerning two school students of DPS School. Despite actual notice, clip was not
removed for sometime from the website. An FIR was registered under Section 67 of IT Act
read with Section 85 ( director’s liability for acts of the company) and Section 292 of the IPC
Act. The court, in a petition to quash FIR against the director held that under Section 292 IPC
no automatic liability of directors was envisaged but Section 67 of IT Act read with Section
85 provides for deemed liability of the director. Later, the case was heard in Appeal in
Aneeta Hada v. M/s Godfather Travels and Tours (p) ltd, the court took the view that
under Section 85 incase an offence is committed by a company, director cannot be made
personally liable without impleading the company as an accused.

Section 67 A. Punishment For Publishing Sexually Explicit Material

This Section provides punishment against acts directed at publishing or transmitting sexually
explicit content online. Imprisonment of upto 5 years and fine upto 10 lacs is provided as
punishment for this Offence.

Section 67 B. Punishment For Child Pornography

Publishing or transmitting child pornography is an offence under this Section that provides
punishment of upto 5years and fine of upto 10 lacs rupees.

Note: proviso to Section 67,67A and 67 B excludes such literary work that is written for the
purposes of art, science, literature or other objects of general concern, or which are retained
for religious, or bona fide heritage purposes.

According to IT ( Guidelines To Cybercafe) Rules ,2011 cybercafes are required to put up

sign boards to bring users to notice that viewing pronogarphy, copying or downloading illegal
information is prohibited.
Section 67 C. Liability of Intermediaries For Failure To Preserve Data
Section 67 C makes intermediaries who intentionally or knowingly fail to preserve and retain
data as required by Central Government, liable for punishment by way of imprisonment upto
three years and fine.

Section 68. Power of controller to give directions

Sub- section 1 of Section 68 of the IT Act states that the controller is empowered to direct a
Certifying Authority or any employee of that authority to take such measures or to abstain
from carrying on such activities as specified in the order. The director may also order such
authority to make rules and regulation to ensure the compliance with the provisions of IT Act

Sub-section 2 of Section 68 states that in case 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 both.

The offence under this section is both non-bailable and cognizable.

Section 69. Directions of Controller to a subscriber to extend facilities to decrypt

information:
Under Section 69 the Controllers is empowered to issue directions to any agency of the
Government to intercept any information transmitted through any computer resource. The
controller issue such directions when it is necessary to do so in the interest of the :

a. Sovereignty or integrity of India

b. Friendly relations with foreign states
c. Public order
d. For preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence.

Sub-section 2 states that the subscriber or any person in charge of the computer resource
shall, when called upon by any agency which has been directed by the controller. Such
person has to provide technical assistance to decrypt the information.

Sub-section 3 states that in case the subscriber or any person who fails to assist the agency
shall be punishable with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to Seven Years.
Section 70. Protected System
Under section 70 the appropriate government ( central or state government as the case may
be) is empowered to declare any computer, computer system or computer network to be a
protected system.

Sub – section 2 provides that the Government by an order in writing authorize the person to
access the protected system. If 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. (sub-section 3)

Section 71. Penalty for misrepresentation

If a person misrepresents or suppresses or conceals any material fact from controller or
certifying authorities to obtain an electronic signature such person is liable to a punishment
of imprisonment for a term that may extend to two years or fine that may extend to Rs. one
la or both.

Section 72 and Section 72 A. Penalty for breach of confidentiality

If any person who is empowered as public officer under the IT Act discloses any electronic
record pertaining to a person without the consent of such person , he is liable for punishment
for breach of confidentiality, with imprisonment of term upto two years or fine of upto one
lac or both. In case a private entity handling information about a person under a contractual
arrangement, discloses such information about a person without his consent, Section 72A
provides punishment for period of upto three years or fine upto 5 lacs or both.

Section 73 and Section 74. Penalty for illegal acts connected with electronic
signature certificates
Penalty for publishing electronic signatures that bear false particulars is imprisonment for a
term of upto two years or fine of upto one lac or both. ( section 73)

Section 74 provides punishment for publishing electronic signature certificates for unlawful
or fraudulent purposes with a term that may extend to two years or fine of one lac or both.
Inter-relation between offences mentioned under IT Act and Offences
Under Indian Penal Code
The Information Technology Act deals with cyber crimes. The cyber crimes which are e-
crimes are more like the conventional offline crimes transformed into digital world which is
online and therefore they becomes e-crimes or cyber crimes. The crimes which we see earlier
like theft or extortion or any kind of harassment, now those crimes are actually shifted into
online world. The reason behind this is that it is very easy for a criminal to be hide behind the
anonymity which exist on the internet and it is very difficult to track because the IP Address
can be easily concealed using software and other kinds of high-tech gadgets, therefore the
criminals find it very lucrative to be online. To tackle with this problem the I T Act was
enacted and several amendments were made in the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Different
sections of IPC are applied in Cyber Crimes along with the Sections of the I T Act. These are
follows :

1. Forgery- Section 463 IPC

2. Criminal Intimidation – Section 503 IPC
3. Falsification of Accounts- Section 477 IPC
4. Fabricating Evidence- Section 192 IPC
5. Waging war against government- Section 121 IPC
6. Cyber Stalking-Section 354D, 292, 509
7. Cheating and cheating by personation- Section 420 & 419
8. Receiving stolen property- Section 410

1. Forgery
Section 463 of IPC deals with forgery. If any person makes any false electronic record or part
of an electronic record with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or
to support any claim or title, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to
commit fraud , commits forgery. This offence is punishable with imprisonment upto 2 years
or with fine or both (sec.465). In case if such offence is committed the person will be liable
under Section 463 IPC along with Section 65, Section 66 C and 66 D ( when the offence is
committed by person by making fraudulent signature password etc.) The relevant case of
forgery of any electronic record is the Parliament Attack Case.
2. Criminal intimidation
According to Section 503 of IPC – whoever threatens another person with injury to his
person, or property or to his reputation to intimidate the person and to make the person to do
what he is not legally bound to do as means to avoid execution of such threat commits
criminal intimidation. The offence is punishable under Section 506 with imprisonment of
term upto two years or fine or both. If a person is committing the criminal intimidation by
anonymous means it could be by any fake e-mail ID or through a fake profile created on a
social media blog or a network now this offence is punishable up to three years under Section
65 of IT Act in addition to punishment under Section 506 of IPC.

3. Falsification of Accounts
If any person fraudulently or dishonestly or with intent to cause injury to public or any
person, conceals, destroy or deface any document he is said to commit the offence of
falsification of account and such offence is punishable imprisonment for life or imprisonment
up to seven years or and fine. If same person commits the same offence by using computer as
a resource in that case he will also be liable under IT Act under Section 65 and under Section
66 and he may also made liable under section 43 for compensation.

4. Fabricating Evidence
Section 192 states that if any person makes any false entry in any electronic record or makes
any electronic record containing false statement with intention that such record may appear in
evidence in a judicial proceeding, he is said to fabricate false evidence. Such offence is
punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years or and fine.

5. Waging war against the Government of India

Section 121 of IPC states if any person wages war against the Government of India, or
attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death or
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. Section 66 F of the IT Act is an
extension of Section 121 of IPC. If any person tries to wage war against the Government
through computer system then he shall also be liable under Section 66 F of ITA.

6. Cyber Stalking
The word stalking means pursuing stealthily. Cyber stalking can be used interchangeably
used with online harassment/abuse. It is use of internet or any other electronic means to stalk
or harass a person, it involves invading the privacy by following a person’s movement across
the internet, by posting messages on bulletin boards, entering the chat rooms frequented by
the victim and constantly bombarding to the victim messages and e-mails with obscene
languages. In cyber stalking, stalker accesses the victim’s personal information like name,
address, telephone no., family background and posts it on pornographic websites.

Relevant sections under IPC

Stalking-Section 354D

Any man who follows a woman and contacts or attempts to contact such woman to obtain
personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman or
monitors the use of internet by woman or email or any other form of electronic
communication used by her. He commits the offence of stalking.

Obscenity-Section 292

The offence of Cyber Stalking takes within its purview the act of sending obscene materials
to the victim on a social networking sites or through emails.

Outraging the modesty of a woman-Section 509 IPC

A stalker can be booked under this section if the conduct of stalker hinders the privacy of
woman by making any gesture or through words sent by emails messages or posts on social
media.

If any person commits the offence of cyber stalking he in addition to the above mentioned
sections shall be made liable under Section 67, 67 A, 67 B of the IT Act, 2000.

Case law:

Ritu Kohli Case

Ritu Kohli received a no. of emails from unknown sources. Initially she ignored stalker used
obscene language and posted her detail on various websites inviting people to chat with her
on the phone. As a result, she started receiving numerous obscene calls at odd hours. She
lodged a police complaint and police traced down the IP address of accussed to a cyber café.
The cyber stalker Manish Kathuria was arrested under Section 509 IPC for outraging
modesty of a woman and Section 67 IT Act. This is the first case of cyber stalking in India.

Analysis