Offences and Penalties

 Contravention v Offence
 Cyber
 Crime
 Contravention
 Offence
 mens rea – cyber crime
 Intent to secure access to
 any program or data held in any computer, system /
network
 Knowing that such access he intends to secure is
unauthorized
Cyber contravention v cyber offence

 Degree and extent of criminal activity

 E.g. merely gaining access to computer system /
network vis-à-vis specific criminal violation resulting
from such unauthorised access

Cyber Contravention Cyber Offences

 Unauthorised access  In relation to serious offences

 Civil Prosecution  Criminal prosecution

 Damages by way of compensation Punishable by imprisonment term
or fine or both Sections 65-74
 Sections 43(a) to (j), 43 A, 44-45
 Proceedings before appropriate
 Proceedings before Adjudicating
court – nature of offence, cognizable
Officer
or non-cognizable

 Provisions of Limitation Act 1963

 Provisions of limitations as per
to appeal made in Cyber
Sections 468-473 of Cr.P.C. (514-519)
Appellate Tribunal
 Compounding of offences to a
 Compounding of contraventions
limited extent (Section 77A)
Sec 43 v Sec 66
Section 43 Section 66

 Unauthorized access  Unauthorised access with

dishonest or fraudulent
intent to a computer, system /
network / resource

 Essential Ingredient –
 Essential Ingredient –
Unauthorised access to cause
Unauthorised access without wrongful loss or wrongful
any criminal intent gain or with intention to
deceive
Offence under 66; when?
 Comparative study between Section 43 and Sections 65-74
 Victim has legal right to initiate both civil and criminal
proceedings against any offender under the IT ACT 2000
 Careful examination of circumstances required before
taking cognizance as under Sec 43 or Sec 66, 66A (Repealed)-
66D
 Causing of
 destruction, damage, disruption, denial, deletion,
concealment, tampering, manipulation, stealing, or
altering of information residing in a computer resource.
 Unless the information on computer altered or destroyed due
to fraudulent -Sec 2 (9) BNS or dishonest -Sec 2(7) BNS
action;
 no offence under Section 66
Tampering with Computer Source Documents – Source Code

 Section 65 – Essential ingredients

 Knowledge or
 intention to conceal, destroy or alter any source code used for a
computer, computer program/ system / network
 Misappropriation or conversion
 to one’s own use, or use in violation of a legal direction or of any legal
contract
 Listing of programs, computer commands, design and layout and
program analysis of computer resource in any form

 Source code is a proprietary intellect of programmer

 Syed Asifuddin v State of Andhra Pradesh 2005 Cr LJ 4314
 Electronic Service Number – included in the definition of
computer source code
 Rendered cell phone as a computer
Hacking
 MIT 1960, New Hacker’s Dictionary etc
 Hackers and Crackers – ethical and non-ethical
 Exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch
their capabilities – large mainframe computers
 J Harbans Lal of Punjab and Haryana High Court
 Hacking mere – breaking into / computer trespassing (w/o criminal
intent).
 Cracking – with criminal intent and motives
 Amendment Sec 43(i) – Hacking to Computer Related Offence –
replication of Sec 66(Hacking)

 DPP b Bignell (1998) App R. 1 – accessing to motor car details

through national computers, for private purposes – charged for
unauthorised access.
 Authorised access leading to unauthorised modification
 Unauthorised access leading to unauthorised modification
Other Computer related offences
 66A –
 A message not to be sent by a computer resource or any
communication device, which is,
 Grossly offensive and menacing in character
 Known to be false,
 but being sent purposefully and persistently to cause

 Annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult,

injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill-will ,
 Inconvenience , annoyance, to deceive or to mislead the
addressee or recipient about the origin of message.
Other Computer Related Offences
 66B – dishonestly receiving – known to be stolen
 65 C and 66C – identity theft – dishonestly or fraudulently –
to cause wrongful gain or loss
 66E, 67 – publishing the obscene material –
 What constitutes obscene
 Intentionally, knowingly, publish obscene material (captures
and publish without consent in case of a image)
IT ACT juxtaposed with IPC
 Section 66 with
 120B (criminal conspiracy) {61(2)}
 403 (dishonest misappropriation of property) {314}
 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust) {316(2)}
 408 (criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant) {316(4)}
 410, 411(dishonestly receiving stolen property) {317(1),(2)}
 415, 417, 416 (cheating by personation) {318(1),(2), 319(1)}
 418(cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to
person whose interest offender is bound to protect {318(3)}
 425(mischief) {324(1)}
Cr.P.C./BNSS
Secti Offence Cognizable/ Bailable/Non Triable by
on – Non- -bailable Court?
IT cognizable
ACT
65 Tampering with Cognizable Bailable Magistrate of
computer source First Class
documents
66 Computer Related Cognizable Bailable Magistrate of
Offences First Class

66A Offensive messages Cognizable Bailable Magistrate of

through First Class
communication service
66B Dishonestly receiving Cognizable Bailable Magistrate of
stolen computer First Class
resource or
communication device
66C Identity Theft Cognizable Bailable Magistrate of
First Class
66D Cheaing by personation by using Cognizable Bailable Magistrate of
computer resource First Class
66E Violation of privacy Cognizable Bailable Magistrate of
First Class
66F Cyber terrorism Cognizable Bailable Court of
Session
67 Publishing and transmitting obscene
Material in electronic form
First

Second
Cognizable Bailable Magistrate of
First Class
Cognizable Non- Magistrate of
Bailable First Class
Section 43 – Penalty and Compensation for
damage to computer, computer system, etc
Related Case: Mphasis BPO Fraud: 2005
 Facts
 In December 2004, four call centre employees, working at an
outsourcing facility operated by MphasiS in India, obtained
PIN codes from four customers of MphasiS’ client, Citi
Group.
 These employees were not authorized to obtain the PINs.
 These employees opened new accounts at Indian banks using
false identities.

Section 43 – Penalty and Compensation for
damage to computer, computer system, etc
Related Case: Mphasis BPO Fraud: 2005
 Facts
 Within two months, they used the PINs and account
information gleaned during their employment at MphasiS to
transfer money from the bank accounts of CitiGroup
customers to the new accounts at Indian banks.
Section 43 – Penalty and Compensation for
damage to computer, computer system, etc
Related Case: Mphasis BPO Fraud: 2005
 Action
 Indian police could identify the individuals involved in
the scam.
 Arrests were made when those individuals attempted
to withdraw cash from the falsified accounts,
$426,000 was stolen; the amount recovered was
$230,000.

Verdict: Court held that Section 43(a) was applicable
here due to the nature of unauthorized access
involved to commit transactions.
Section 65 – Tampering with Computer Source Documents
Related Case: Syed Asifuddin and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra
Pradesh
 Tata Indicom employees were arrested for
manipulation of
 the electronic 32- bit number (ESN) programmed into
cell phones theft were exclusively franchised to
Reliance Infocomm.

Verdict: Court held that tampering with source
code invokes Section 65 of the Information
Technology Act.
Section 66 – Computer Related offenses
Related Case: Kumar v/s Whiteley
 Facts
 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.

 Investigations had revealed that Kumar was logging on to the

BSNL broadband Internet connection as if he was the
authorized genuine user and ‘made alteration in the
computer database pertaining to broadband Internet user
accounts’ of the subscribers.
Section 66 – Computer Related offenses
Related Case: Kumar v/s Whiteley
 Action
 The CBI had registered a cyber crime case against Kumar and
carried out investigations on the basis of a complaint by
the Press Information Bureau, Chennai, which detected the
unauthorised use of broadband Internet.
Section 66 – Computer Related offenses
Related Case: Kumar v/s Whiteley
 The complaint also stated that the subscribers had
incurred a loss of Rs 38,248 due to Kumar’s wrongful
act.
 He used to ‘hack’ sites from Bangalore, Chennai and
other cities too, they said.

Verdict: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Egmore, Chennai, sentenced N G Arun Kumar, the techie
from Bangalore to undergo a rigorous imprisonment
for one year with a fine of Rs 5,000 under section
420 IPC (cheating) and Section 66 of IT Act
(Computer related Offense).
Section 66C – identity theft
 The CEO of an identity theft protection company, Lifelock,
Todd Davis’s social security number was exposed by Matt
Lauer on NBC’s Today Show.
 Davis’ identity was used to obtain a $500 cash advance
loan.

 Li Ming, a graduate student at West Chester University of

Pennsylvania faked his own death, complete with a forged
obituary in his local paper. Nine months later, Li attempted
to obtain a new driver’s license with the intention of
applying for new credit cards eventually.
Section 66D – Punishment for cheating by
impersonation by using computer resource
Relevant Case: Sandeep Vaghese v/s State of Kerala
 Facts
 A complaint filed by the representative of a Company, which
was engaged in the business of trading and distribution of
petrochemicals in India and overseas,
 a crime was registered against nine persons, alleging
 offenses under Sections 65, 66, 66A, C and D of the
Information Technology Act along with Sections 419
and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 66D – Punishment for cheating by
impersonation by using computer resource
Relevant Case: Sandeep Vaghese v/s State of Kerala
 The company has a web-site in the name and and
style www.jaypolychem.com' but,

 another web site www.jayplychem.org’ was set up in the

internet by first accused Samdeep Varghese @ Sam, (who
was dismissed from the company)
 in conspiracy with other accused, including Preeti and
Charanjeet Singh, who are the sister and brother-in-law of
`Sam’
Section 66D – Punishment for cheating by
impersonation by using computer resource
Relevant Case: Sandeep Vaghese v/s State of Kerala
 Facts
 Defamatory and malicious matters about the first
company and its directors were made available in that
website.
 The accused and others sent e-mails from fake e-mail
accounts to many of its customers, suppliers, Bank etc.
to malign the name and image of the Company and its
Directors.
Section 66D – Punishment for cheating by
impersonation by using computer resource
Relevant Case: Sandeep Vaghese v/s State of Kerala

 The defamation campaign run by all the said persons

named above has caused immense damage to the name
and reputation of the Company.

The Company suffered losses of several crores of Rupees
from producers, suppliers and customers and were unable to
do business.
 End…
 Cases Referred from
 https://niiconsulting.com/checkmate/2014/06/it-act-
2000-penalties-offences-with-case-studies/
Siphoning of money by cloning
Sim card
 BENGALURU: Cybercriminals targeted the bank
account of a Bengaluru Hospital and siphoned off Rs
17 Lakhs after cloning the official sim card associated ;
adding unknown beneficiaries to it

 (26/02/2020)
 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/74308
541.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium
=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Hacking official email id and
sending defamatory email
 HYDERABAD: Two persons were nabbed by
Rachakonda cybercrime for hacking in official email-
id and then sending defamatory emails to contractors
– organisation blacklisted from getting government
contracts
 19/12/2019
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7287
6002.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_mediu
m=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Social Networking accounts –
controlled
 NAGPUR: Artist Bijayananda Biswal, a noted painter’s
social networking account (with images of his work
over the years online) – taken over – and couldn’t
access his work himself

17/01/2020
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/73308
884.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_mediu
m=text&utm_campaign=cppst
KYC related frauds
 SMSes asking KYC details else – accounts getting
blocked
 Or help offered in getting the blocked wallets activated

Read more at:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/74261
050.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_mediu
m=text&utm_campaign=cppst
 Cyberwarfare
 Stuxnet
 Fire sale