Analysis: CBI v. Arif Azim

Also known as Sony Sambandh Case.

Introduction:

In the concerned case, the petitioner CBI has filed the case against the defendant Arif Azim, a call center employee, on the grounds of cybercrime committed by him. This case deals with the Information Technology Act, 2000 and India Penal Code, 1862. It being one-of-its-kind in the field of cybercrime, holds the importance of national level, as India saw its first cybercrime conviction in this case.

Facts

A complaint was filed by Sony India Ltd, which runs a website named www.sony.sambandh.com. Which enables NRIs to send the Sony products to their friends and family in India by making an online payment. Under the identity of Barbara Campa, someone logged onto the website. Also ordered a Sony Color Television set and a cordless headphone. The payment by the user was done using the Credit Card. She requested to deliver the product to Arif Azim in Noida. The payment was duly cleared by the credit card agency. The products deliver to Arif Azim by completing the necessary procedures. That are require for the record like clicking of pictures for the evidence of the acceptance of the delivery.

 The transaction was closed at that. But after one and a half months, the Credit Card agency informed the company. That the transaction was done by an unauthorized person. As the real owner refused having made the transaction.

Thereupon, the company complained to the CBI, which register the case under Section 418, 419, 420 of Indian Penal Code. After the investigation, it was revealed that Arif Azim while working at a call center in Noida. He got access to the details of the Credit Card Number of an American National. So he used to make the unauthorized purchase of Sony products on the website.

The Color Television and the cordless headphones were recovered by the CBI, and Arif Azim was arrested.

Issue

• Whether the Indian Penal Code can be applied to cybercrimes.
• Whether the punishment should be grave or lenient.

Rule of Law

Under Indian Penal Code

1.       Section 418 of Indian Penal Code states “Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect”

 Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely to cause unjust harm to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, has been obliged to protect, either by statute or by a legal contract, shall be punished with the imprisonment of either description for a period that may extend to three years, or with fine, or both.

2.       Section 419 of Indian Penal Code states “Punishment for cheating by personation”

Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with fine, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with both.

3.       Section 420 of Indian Penal Code states “Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property”

Anyone who cheats and thus dishonestly induces the deceived person to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything that is signed or sealed and that can be converted into a valuable security shall be punished with the imprisonment of any description for a term of up to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Under the Information Technology Act

Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with the computer-related offenses and the punishment for committing such offenses.

Section 66C of IT ACT defines- “Punishment for identity theft”

Identity theft means the phenomenon of stealing another person’s identity. A person committing identity theft shall be punished with imprisonment up to 3 yrs, or fine up to Rs.1 lakh, or with both.

Judgment

The court, based on evidence of witnesses and material before it found Arif Azim guilty of an offense under Section 418, 419, 420, of Indian Penal Code and convicted him for cyber fraud and cheating. However, the court felt that a lenient punishment should be given considering it to be the first time conviction of cybercrime criminal and the accused has no past criminal record and was a 24-year old young boy. Keeping same in the mind, the accused was ordered the release on probation for one year. Also, it was held that all types of crimes, be it cybercrime, are covered under the India Penal Code.

Conclusion

The decision is of utmost significance for the country as a whole. Aside from being the first in the case of cybercrime, the conviction has shown that the Indian Penal Code can be implemented and applied specifically to other types of cyber-crimes not protected by the Information Technology Act 2000. Second, a decision of this nature sends out a strong opinion to everyone that the law can’t be taken for a ride.