Blog Details

Introduction:

Cyber Crimes are criminal activities done with the assistance or on technological mediums, such as the internet & computers. Cyber Crime, in itself, has no definition given to it, under any law, in India. Though Cyber Crime is not defined in any law, some of cyber crimes are defined in Information Technology Act, 2000, and some cyber crimes are dealt with by extending the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There is no stand-alone or comprehensive law, that deals with laws relating to technology, whether it is regulation of the civil & commercial regime relating to technology or penalizing criminal activities, such as cybercrime.

Different Cyber Crimes in India:

Hacking and data theft, such as gaining access to a computer or computer network without authorization, disruption of any computer system or network, introduction and spread of viruses through computer networks, harm to computers, networks, or applications, and destruction or damage to data stored on a computer are all examples of cyber crimes, punishable under section 43 & section 66 of the Information technology Act, 2000.

Receipt of stolen property is another such offence punishable under Information Technology Act, 2000. Receipt of stolen property, under section 66B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, means receiving any computer resource or communication device that has been stolen dishonestly. According to this section, the individual who received the stolen goods must have done so dishonestly or had good reason to suspect it was stolen. 

Identity theft and cheating by impersonation is covered under section 66C and section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000, punishes any person who dishonestly or fraudulently impersonates another person by means of such another person’s password, electronic signature or unique identification feature. According to Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, anybody who engages in "cheating by impersonation by using computer resources" by using a communication device or computer resource is subject to punishment. 

Obscenity is punishable under section 67, section 67A, section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The above provisions, prescribe for punishment, in case of publishing & transmitting of obscene material or materials containing sexually explicit act or materials involving children in sexually explicit acts,etc, in electronic form. In the case of Sharat Babu Digumarti v. State(NCT of Delhi), (2017) 2 SCC 18, the Supreme Court of India, when answering the scope of section 67 read with section 67A & section 67B, held that section 67 read with section 67A and section 67B are a complete code relating to the offences relating to Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Information Technology Act, 2000, section 43(h) and section 66 together penalize anyone caught using a computer, computer system, or computer network to fraudulently charge the services of one person to the account of another. According to the aforementioned section 43(h) of the Information Technology Act,2000, a person who tampers with an electrical provider's computer system and makes his neighbour pay for his electricity consumption is guilty of the offence. 

According to Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, anyone who intentionally or knowingly conceals, destroys, or modifies any computer source code (i.e., a list of programmes, computer commands, design and layout, and programme analysis of computer resources in any form) used for a computer, computer programme, computer system, or computer network, or intentionally or knowingly causes another to do the same, shall be punished. 

Violation of a person’s privacy is punishable under section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000. According to Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, anyone who intentionally or knowingly takes, publishes or transmits an image of a person's private area without that person's consent while acting in a manner that violates that person's privacy is subject to punishment. These provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 are gender neutral, unlike Indian Penal Code, 1860, one such example is section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which only punishes a person outraging modesty of a woman, and not covers other genders.

The well publicized laws relating to intermediaries is given under section 67C of the Information Technology Act, 2000. An "intermediary" must keep and store information as may be specified for such a period of time and in such a way and format as the Central Government may specify, according to Section 67C of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Information Technology Act, 2000, defines a "intermediary" as any person who receives, stores, or transmits an electronic record on behalf of another person or who renders any services related to that record. This definition includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online auction sites, online marketplaces, and cyber cafes.

Conclusion:

One fatal flaw, in Indian Laws is that it is differentiating between the offenses that can be done in both physically and in digital form. Differentiating laws on criminal and civil nature has been the differentiation that machinery of our judiciary does, as civil laws are mainly meant to regulate and penalize in some cases, while criminal offenses are punished upon. Differentiating offenses on digital and physical form is not the way to move forward, the basic substantive provisions relating to offenses need to be incorporated, in a single code, in both civil and criminal laws. Further rules and regulations can be provided for substantive and procedural differences, in form of subordinate legislation, for dealing with digital and physical offenses, as necessary.

References:

·       Information Technology Act, 2000

·        Indian Penal Code, 1860

·       https://www.mondaq.com/india/it-and-internet/891738/cyber-crimes-under-the-ipc-and-it-act--an-uneasy-co-existence

·       Sharat Babu Digumarti v. State(NCT of Delhi), (2017) 2 SCC 18