IT PROJECT

OFFENCES & PENALTIES

UNDER THE

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

ACT

PRADNYA R PAHURKAR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
1. Introduction.
2. Offences
i. Introduction
ii. Offences under IT Act
a. Tampering with the computer source
documents.
b. Hacking with computer system.
c. Publishing of information which is obscene
in electronic form.
d. Power of Controller to give directions
e. Directions of Controller to a subscriber to
extend facilities to decrypt information
f. Protected system
g. Penalty for misrepresentation
h. Penalty for breach of confidentiality and
privacy
i. Penalty for publishing Digital Signature
Certificate false in certain particulars
j. Publication for fraudulent purpose
k. Act to apply for offence or contravention
committed outside India
l. Confiscation
m. Penalties or confiscation not to interfere
with other punishments.
n. Power to investigate offences.

2
 Bibilography

INTRODUCTION
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

3
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.

OFFENCES:

INTRODUCTION:

4
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
(e) Hacking
(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

5
 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
12. Confiscation
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.

6
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.

7
CASE LAWS:
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.

8
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.

9
(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.

CASE LAWS:
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.

10
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

11
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.
CASE LAWS:
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

12
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.

13
 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.

14
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

15
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.

16
(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).

17
(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.

18
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

19
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.

20
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.

CASE LAWS:

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

21
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

22
 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.

CASE LAWS:

23
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

24
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:

25
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.

Conclusion:
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.

26
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.

REFERENCES:

Law relating to patents, trademarks, copyright, designs and

geographical indications------- by WADEHRA.

Intellectual property law --------- by P. NARAYAN.

27