Introduction:
In all aspects of our everyday lives, from studying, recreation, personal contact to performing financial transactions, the use of computers, the Internet, and telecommunication or information devices has given us a great deal of ease. The use of this electronic form of information has many advantages. People use this technology because it is both efficient and effective. The ease of this interactive environment, however, has at the same time generated a great opportunity for exploitation by offenders. The lawmakers of this country saw a need to protect privileged information and therefore the Information Technology Act, 2000 was enacted. This law has been conceived on the model of the United Nations Commissions on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
The major objective of the act was to give legal recognition to transactions carried out by means of electronic data interchange or any alternative to paper-based system of communication. The act further amended the provisions Indian penal code (IPC), the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the Banker’s Books Evidence Act, 1891, and the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934.[1]
Cybercrime
In Neuromancer, a science fiction novel published in 1984, the word cyberspace was first used by William Gibson for referring to the internet and other networks. Since then there has been an expansion in the use of this term with various prefixes, cybercrime being one among them. More than three decades have passed but cybercrime is not fully defined in any legal texts, legislations, or studies. Although attempts have been to leniently give a wide definition to the word.
According to the ministry of home affairs, “cybercrime in general is defined as an act which is unlawful in nature which is committed using a computer or a communication device or a computer network”. There are 24 crimes enlisted including child pornography/Child sexually abusive material (CSAM), cyberbullying, cyberstalking, cyber grooming, job online fraud, online sextortion, vishing. SIM swap scam, spamming etc. with detailed explanation of each of them for better facilitation of filing complaints.[2]
Cybercrime is not a simple crime that can be defined domestically. The core nature of cybercrime is global as it has multiple territorial connections. The criminals of cybercrimes have more opportunities to commit crime than any other criminal. This is a crime without borders. Cyberspace is independent and so are the criminals. Internationally, cybercrimes, including hacking, financial fraud, and other cross-border activities, include both governmental and non-state entities. Operation that crosses international boundaries and affects at least one nation-interests state is often referred to as electronic warfare. Via the International Criminal Court, the international justice system is working to keep individuals responsible for their actions.
Computer Related Offences
As stated earlier, no legislation defines the term cybercrime. Even the criminal code of India which is a comprehensive code that covers all aspects of criminal law does not mention the term cybercrime anywhere. Cyber offenses are criminal actions carried out in a very detailed manner in which either the weapon or the target is the computer, or both. Computer related offenses encompass the following in general:
- Illegal access to computers
- Data diddling
- Invasion by virus/worms
- Computer system theft
- Hacking
- Denial of attacks
- Logic bombs
- Attacks by Trojans
- Internet time theft
- Web jacking
- Email bombing
- Salami attacks
- Physically damaging computer system.[3]
The Information Technology act, 2000, under section 43 creates criminal liability upon a person who damages the computer, or the computer system, or the computer network without the permission of the owner of such computer with a penalty and compensation for the person so affected. According to section 66 of the Information Technology act, 2000, if any person dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with a fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.[4] The words dishonestly and fraudulently have to be understood as defined in the section 24 and 25 of IPC respectively.
The offenses enlisted under the IT act are as follows:
- Tampering with the computer source documents.
- Hacking with computer system.
- Publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form.
- Power of Controller to give directions
- Directions of Controller to a subscriber to extend facilities to decrypt information
- Protected system
- Penalty for misrepresentation
- Penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy
- Penalty for publishing Digital Signature Certificate false in certain particulars
- Publication for fraudulent purpose
- Act to apply for offense or contravention committed outside India
- Confiscation
- Penalties or confiscation not to interfere with other punishments.
- Power to investigate offenses.[5]
The present paper will revolve around the offenses listed in the section 66, 66A, 66B, 66C, and 66D of the act.
Computer Related Offences (Section 66)
Section 66 talks about hacking activities in precise. Whoever removes or deletes or changes any information stored in a computer resource or reduces its value or usefulness or damages it harmfully by some means to cause or understand that it is likely to cause unfair loss or harm to the public or any person, commits hacking. Whoever commits hacking shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three years or with a fine of up to two lakh rupees, or with both.
Section 424 of the IPC states that ‘Any person who dishonestly or fraudulently conceals or removes any property of himself or any other person, or who dishonestly or fraudulently assists in the concealment or removal thereof, or who dishonestly releases any claim or claim to which he is entitled, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a period of up to two years or with fine or both. It is safe to conclude that this section applies to data theft also. Under section 424, the ultimate sentence is imprisonment of up to two years or a fine of both.
Section 425 of the IPC states that “whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits mischief”. Needless to add, the above section 425 of the IPC would cover destroying data systems and even refusing access to a computer device. As per section 426 of the IPC, the ultimate penalty for mischief is imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of both.[6]
Punishment for sending Offensive Messages (Section 66A)
Section 66A deals with the punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc. which is one of the most controversial provisions of the act. The provision read as “Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.”[7]
Brief Background of Section 66A
In 2012 a PIL was filed by a law student named Shreya Singhal who fought for the amendment in section 66A after the arrest of two girls. One of them commented against the shutdown in Mumbai because of the death of Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray and the other girl ‘liked’ the post.
The apex court issued an advisory on May 16, 2013, after multiple allegations of abuse and arrests that a person suspected of making offensive remarks on social networking sites cannot be detained without police seeking consent from senior officers such as IG or DCP.[8] In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the law violated Article 14, which provided for equality before the law, Article 19, which included freedom of speech and expression, and Article 21, or the right to life and personal liberty, of all fundamental constitutional rights. And therefore it was scrapped out.
Punishment for Dishonestly Receiving stolen Computer Resources or Communication Device (Section 66B)
Punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or communication device: Section 66B of the IT Act provides for penalties for the deceptive receipt of any stolen computer or communication device. This section requires that the person who acquired the stolen property should have done so dishonestly or should have cause to suspect that the property was stolen. Under Section 66B of the IT Act, the sentence for this offense is imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of up to Rupees one lac or both.[9] Apart from this the IPC also lays down punishment for receiving any stolen goods dishonestly. This section finds resemblance with the section 66B of the IT Act when read in parallel. The punishment prescribed under section 411 of IPC is imprisonment of either description for a term of up to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Punishment for Identity Theft (Section 66C)
This section deals with Punishment for identity theft. It provides for penalties for identity theft and provides that every individual who fraudulently or dishonestly makes use of any other person’s electronic signature, password, or any other unique identification feature shall be punished by imprisonment of either description for a period of up to three years and Rupees one lac. A case of identity theft took place when a 26-year-old Central Armed Police employee, who was a die-hard fan of actress Kareena Kapoor, was arrested by cyber police for allegedly breaching her income tax account. The North Indian state official told the cyber police that he hacked her Income Tax account so that he could get access to her mobile phone that he could use to speak to her. The defendant was booked under impersonation, identity theft, and the relevant sections of the Information Technology Act.[10]
Punishment for Cheating by Personalization by using Computer Programs (Section 66D)
Section 66D of the IT Act provides for punishment for ‘cheating by personation by using computer services’ and provides that any person who cheats by personation by means of any communication device or computer resource shall be punishable by imprisonment of either type for a period of up to three years and shall also be liable for a fine which may be extended to Rupees one lac.[11] Section 419 of the IPC also provides for the ‘cheating by personation’ penalty and provides that any person who cheats by personation shall be punished with either a summary of imprisonment for a period that may stretch to three years or with a fine or both. If such a person cheats by pretending to be any other person, or by intentionally substituting one person for another, or representing that he or some other person is a person other than he or that other person is, an entity is said to be guilty of ‘cheating by personation.’
Conclusion
To fight cybercrime, the Information Technology Act is the salvation. Although the Indian Penal Code and other laws of the Nation still come under crimes where computer is either tool or target, this Act is a separate act to tackle the cybercrime issue. The Amendment Act of 2008 sharpened the existing Act, but it is still in its budding state. Cyberattacks in the country are seriously underreported. Now and then, cyber-crime is committed but rarely reported. Therefore, there are relatively few cases of cybercrime before the Court of Justice. In collecting, preserving, and appreciating digital documentation, there are practical difficulties. With the growth in the number of frauds and cyber-related violence, refined laws are being placed by the government to safeguard people’s rights and protect against any internet mishaps. Besides, stricter regulations have been drawn up with regard to the security of ‘sensitive personal records’ in the hands of intermediaries and service providers (corporate bodies) to ensure data protection and privacy.
References:
[1]THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000.objective [online] Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1999/3/A2000-21.pdf [Accessed 14 Jan. 2021].
[2]cybercrime.gov.in. (n.d.). Cyber Crime Portal. [online] Available at: https://cybercrime.gov.in/Webform/CrimeCatDes.aspx.
[3] Deo, R. (2014). Offences Under IT Act, 2000. [online] Academike. Available at: https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/offences-act-2000/ [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].
[4] cis-india.org. (n.d.). Computer Related Offences — The Centre for Internet and Society. [online] Available at: https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-66-it-act.txt#:~:text=If%20any%20person%2C%20dishonestly%20or [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].
[5] Pradnya (n.d.). Offences & Penalties under the IT Act, 2000. [online] www.legalservicesindia.com. Available at: http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/439/Offences-&-Penalties-under-the-IT-Act [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].
[6] Joseph, vVnodh and Ray, D. (2020). Cyber Crimes Under The IPC And IT Act – An Uneasy Co-Existence – Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment – India. [online] www.mondaq.com. Available at: https://www.mondaq.com/india/it-and-internet/891738/cyber-crimes-under-the-ipc-and-it-act–an-uneasy-co-existence.
[7] THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000.66A [online] Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1999/3/A2000-21.pdf [Accessed 15 Jan. 2021b].
[8] Hindustan Times. (2015). Sec 66A of IT act scrapped: 5 points observed by Supreme Court. [online] Available at: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/sec-66a-of-it-act-scrapped-5-points-observed-by-supreme-court/story-EtZnxzRGrfsutSk5fjML4H.html [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].
[9] THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000.66B [online] Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1999/3/A2000-21.pdf [Accessed 15 Jan. 2021c].
[10] Information Tech. Law. (2014). Section 66C of Information Technology Act: Punishment for identity theft. [online] Available at: https://www.itlaw.in/section-66c-punishment-for-identity-theft/ [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].
[11] Joshi, D. (2019). Offences and Penalties under Information Technology Act, 2000. [online] TaxGuru. Available at: https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/offences-penalties-information-technology-act-2000.html#:~:text=Offences%20under%20Information%20Technology%20Act [Accessed 16 Jan. 2021].
0 Comments