A PROJECT

ON

Offences under IT Act

Supervised by: Submitted by:

Ms. Tanya Agarwal Ayushi Bugalia

Asst. Professor Semester-X

RSLW Roll No- 03

Sub- Cyber Laws

April, 2023

1
 Certificate

Ms. Tanya Agarwal Date: April, 2023

Asst. Professor

Rajasthan School of Law for Women

Jaipur

This is to certify that Ayushi Bugalia, student of semester X, has carried out Project titled
“Offences under IT Act” under my supervision. It is an investigation report of a minor
research project. The student has completed research work in stipulated time and according to
the norms prescribed for the purpose.

Ms. Tanya Agarwal

2
 Acknowledgement

I have written this project titled “Offences under IT Act” under the supervision of Ms. Tanya
Agarwal Asst. Prof. of Rajasthan School of Law for Women, Jaipur. Her valuable
suggestions herein have not only helped me immensely in making this work but also
developing an analytical approach to this work.

I found no words to express my sense of gratitude for Principal Vartika Arora for constant
encouragement at every step.

I am extremely grateful to librarian and library staff of the college for the support and
cooperation extended by them from time to time.

Ayushi Bugalia

3
 Table of Content
Certificate (2)
Acknowledgement (3)

Table of case (5)

Research Question and Research Methodology (6)

Chapter-1 (7-9)
Introduction

Chapter-2 (10-20)
Offences under IT Act

Chapter-3 (21)
Conclusion

Bibliography (22)

4
 Table of Cases

 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

 M/S Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd and Rajendra Prasad Yadav v. Union of India
(2014)
 Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj and Ors. (2018)
 Frios v/s State of Kerela (2006)
 Syed Asifuddin case (2005)
 Parliament Attack Case (2001)

5
  Objective of the Project:
The objective of this project is The Act was passed to deal with e-commerce and all the
intricacies involved with digital signatures and fulfill the following objectives. The Act seeks
to protect all transactions done through electronic means. E-commerce has reduced
paperwork used for communication purposes. It also gives legal protection to communication
and the exchange of information through electronic means. It protects the digital signatures
that are used for any sort of legal authentication. It regulates the activities of intermediaries
by keeping a check on their powers. It defines various offences related to data privacy of
citizens and hence protects their data. It also regulates and protects the sensitive data stored
by social media and other electronic intermediaries. It provides recognition to books of
accounts kept in electronic form regulated by the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.

 Research Questions:
 What are the offences under IT Act?
 What is the background of the Act?
 What is the applicability of the Act?
 What are the objectives of the Act?
 What are the various offences covered under IT Act 2000?

 Research Methodology:

The methodology adopted for this research was non-empirical/doctrinal comprising a

systematic study and analyses of published research (journals, books and online sources).an
attempt has been made to analyse the legal provision in making the minor research project
titled “Offences under IT Act”.

6
 Chapter-1
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 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, 1934.1

 Background of Information Technology Act, 2000

The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law in 1996 adopted a model law on
e-commerce and digital intricacies. It also made it compulsory for every country to have its
own laws on e-commerce and cybercrimes. In order to protect the data of citizens and the
government, the Act was passed in 2000, making India the 12th country in the world to pass
legislation for cyber crimes. It is also called the IT Act and provides the legal framework to
protect data related to e-commerce and digital signatures. It was further amended in 2008 and
2018 to meet the needs of society. The Act also defines the powers of intermediaries and their
limitations.  

1
https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/439/Offences-&-Penalties-under-the-IT-Act,-2000.html

7
  Objectives of Information Technology Act, 2000

The Act was passed to deal with e-commerce and all the intricacies involved with digital
signatures and fulfill the following objectives:

 The Act seeks to protect all transactions done through electronic means. 

 E-commerce has reduced paperwork used for communication purposes. It also

gives legal protection to communication and the exchange of information through
electronic means. 

 It protects the digital signatures that are used for any sort of legal authentication. 

 It regulates the activities of intermediaries by keeping a check on their powers. 

 It defines various offences related to data privacy of citizens and hence protects
their data.

 It also regulates and protects the sensitive data stored by social media and other
electronic intermediaries.

 It provides recognition to books of accounts kept in electronic form regulated by

the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.2

 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

2
https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/439/Offences-&-Penalties-under-the-IT-Act,-2000.html

8
 5. Directions of Controller to a subscriber to extend facilities to decrypt information

6. Protected system

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.3

3
https://blog.ipleaders.in/information-technology-act-2000/

9
 Chapter-2

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.

 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.

10
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.

 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.4

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. The accused argued
that computers and evidence can easily be tampered and hence should not be relied.
4
https://blog.ipleaders.in/information-technology-act-2000/

11
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.

Section 66. 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.

(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.

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.

12
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.5

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 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:

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 lakhs.

2. In a recent case, a groom's family received numerous emails containing defamator

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.

5
https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/offences-penalties-information-technology-act-2000.html

13
4. DASKHINA Kannada police have solved the first case of cyber crime in the district.
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 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.

14
(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).

(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.

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.

Penalties: Punishment: imprisonment which may extend to two years

Fine: may extend to one lakh rupees or with both.6

6
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/13116/1/it_act_2000_updated.pdf

15
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 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.

16
Penalties: Punishment imprisonment of a term of which may extend to two years.

Fine: fine may extend to 1 lakh rupees or with both.

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.

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

fraudulent purpose or
ii. unlawful purpose.

Penalties: Punishment: imprisonment for a term up to two years.

Fine: up to one lakh or both.7

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.

7
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/13116/1/it_act_2000_updated.pdf

17
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 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:

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.

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.8

8
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/offences-act-2000/

18
  Landmark judgments on Information Technology Act, 2000

 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

 Facts

In this case, 2 girls were arrested for posting comments online on the issue of shutdown in
Mumbai after the death of a political leader of Shiv Sena. They were charged under Section
66A for posting the offensive comments in electronic form. As a result, the constitutional
validity of the Section was challenged in the Supreme Court stating that it infringes
upon Article 19 of the Constitution. 

 Issue 

Whether Section 66A is constitutionally valid or not?

 Judgment 

The Court, in this case, observed that the language of the Section is ambiguous and vague,
which violates the freedom of speech and expression of the citizens. It then struck down the
entire Section on the ground that it was violative of Article 19 of the Constitution. It opined
that the Section empowered police officers to arrest any person whom they think has posted
or messaged anything offensive. Since the word ‘offensive’ was not defined anywhere in the
Act, they interpreted it differently in each case. This amounted to an abuse of power by the
police and a threat to peace and harmony. 

 M/S Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd and Rajendra Prasad Yadav v. Union of India
(2014)

 Facts 

In this case, the petitioners demanded the appointment of a chairperson to the Cyber

Appellate Tribunal so that cases can be disposed of quickly and someone can keep a check on
the workings of CAT. The respondents submitted that a chairperson would be appointed
soon.
 Issue 

19
Appointment of the chairperson of CAT. 

 Judgment 

The Court ordered the appointment of the chairperson and must see this as a matter of
urgency and take into account Section 53 of the Act. 

 Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj and Ors (2018)

 Facts 

In this case, a suit was filed by a shoe company to seek an order of injunction against the
defendants for using its trademarks and logo. 

 Issue 

Whether the protection of “safe harbour” under Section 79 of the Act be applied in this case?

 Judgment

The Court in this case observed that the defendant was not an intermediary as their website
was a platform for the supply of various products. It used third-party information and
promoted vendors in order to attract consumers for them. The Court held that e-commerce
platforms are different from the intermediaries and the rights granted to them in Section 79 of
the Act. It ordered the intermediaries to work with due diligence and not infringe the rights of
the trademark owner. They must take steps to recognise the authenticity and genuineness of
the products while dealing with any merchant or dealer. The Court added that if the
intermediaries act negligently regarding IPR and indulge in any sort of abetment or
incitement of unlawful or illegal activity, they will be exempted from the protection of safe
harbour under Section 79 of the Act. Any active participation in e-commerce would also lead
to the same. It also referred to the intermediaries guidelines, which state that no intermediary
must violate any intellectual property rights of anyone while displaying any content on its
website.9

9
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/offences-act-2000/

20
 Chapter-3

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.

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.

The Act is a step toward protecting the data and sensitive information stored with the
intermediaries online. It gives various provisions which benefit the citizens and protect their
data from being misused or lost. However, with the advancement of e-commerce and online
transactions, it is necessary to deal with problems like internet speed and security,
transactions that are struck, the safety of passwords, cookies, etc. Cyber crimes are increasing
at a great pace, and there is a need to have a mechanism to detect and control them. 

21
 Bibliography

 Online Sources:
 https://www.lawctopus.com/
 https://www.indiacode.nic.in/f
 https://taxguru.in/l
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/
 https://www.legalservicesindia.com/l

 Books:

22