Lab PPT It Act 2000

Information Technology Act, 2000
Presented by – Parv Kapoor (Slides 2-4), Nikhil Tanvar (Slides 5-10), Nitin
Yadav(Slides 11-15), Pranjal Rai (Slides 16-20, 25-27)Prashant Shukla(21-24)
Features
All electronic contracts created through secure electronic channels were legally valid.
Legal recognition for digital signatures.
Security measures for electronic records and conjointly digital signatures are in place. A procedure for
the appointment of adjudicating officers for holding inquiries underneath the Act is finalized.
Provision for establishing a Cyber restrictive Appellant judicature underneath the Act. Further, this
judicature can handle all appeals created against the order of the Controller or Adjudicating Officer.
It charms against the order of the Cyber Appellant judicature is feasible solely within the court.
Digital Signatures uses an uneven cryptosystem and conjointly a hash operate.
Provision for the appointment of the Controller of Certifying Authorities (CCA) to license and regulate
the operating of Certifying Authorities. The Controller acts as a repository of all digital signatures.
The Act applies to offences or contraventions committed outside India.
Senior law enforcement offirest while not warrant.
Provisions for the constitution of a Cyber laws committee to advise the Central.
Applicability
Applies to Doesn’t apply to

•According to Section 1 (2), the Act extends to the whole •Execution of instrument underneath Negotiable Instruments
country that conjointly includes Jammu and the Act, 1881, except cheques.
geographic region as the Act uses Article 253 of the •Execution of influence of professional underneath the Powers
constitution. Further, it doesn't consider citizenship and of professional Act, 1882.
provides extra-territorial jurisdiction. •Creation of Trust underneath the Indian Trust Act, 1882.
•Section 1 (2) at the side of Section 75 specifies that the •Execution of a can underneath the Indian Succession Act,
Act applies to any offence or dispute committed outside 1925 as well as the other legal document disposition by no
India yet. If the conduct of personnel constituting the matter name known as.
offence involves a laptop or a processed system or network •Stepping into a contract for the sale or conveyance of
settled in India, then no matter his/her position, the person immovable property or any interest in such property.
is punishable underneath the Act. •Any such category of documents or transactions as is also
•Lack of international cooperation is the sole limitation of notified by the Central Government within the Gazette.
this provision.
Cyber Offence
Cyber offenses are the unlawful acts which are carried in a very sophisticated manner in which either the computer is
the tool or target or both. Cybercrime usually includes:
•Section 65 - Tampering with computer source documents
•Section 66 – Hacking with computer system
•Section 66B - Receiving stolen computer or communication device
•Section 66C – Using password of another person
•Section 66D – Cheating using computer resource
•Section 66E – Publishing private images of others
•Section 66F – Act of cyber terrorism
•Section 67 - Publishing information which is obscene in e-form
•Section 67A - Publishing images containing sexual acts
•Section 67B – Publishing child porn or predating children online
•Section 67C - Failure to maintain records
•Section 68 - Failure/refusal to comply with orders
•Section 69 - Failure/refusal to decrypt data
•Section 70 - Securing access to a protected system
•Section 71 – Misrepresentation
Amendments
The I.T. Act has brought amendment in four statutes vide section 91-94. These changes have been provided in
schedule 1-4.
The first schedule contains the amendments in the Penal Code. It has widened the scope of the term
"document" to bring within its ambit electronic documents.
The second schedule deals with amendments to the India Evidence Act. It pertains to the inclusion of
electronic document in the definition of evidence.
The third schedule amends the Banker's Books Evidence Act. This amendment brings about change in the
definition of "Banker's-book". It includes printouts of data stored in a floppy, disc, tape or any other form of
electromagnetic data storage device. Similar change has been brought about in the expression "Certified-copy"
to include such printouts within its purview.
The fourth schedule amends the Reserve Bank of India Act. It pertains to the regulation of fund transfer
through electronic means between the banks or between the banks and other financial institution.
Latest Ammendments in The IT Act
1. Amendment in 2008 (IT Amendment Act, 2008):
Introduced provisions related to cybersecurity, data protection, and electronic governance.
Established the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) to handle cybersecurity incidents.
2.Amendment in 2013 (IT Amendment Act, 2013):

Expanded the definition of "cyber terrorism" and enhanced penalties for cybercrime.
Introduced provisions related to the protection of sensitive personal data and information.
3.Amendment in 2016 (IT Amendment Act, 2016):

Strengthened provisions related to punishment for cybercrime offenses.
Enhanced penalties for publishing or transmitting sexually explicit material in electronic form.
4. Notified Amendments 2022

Obligations of intermediaries
Appeal mechanism against decisions of grievance officers
Expeditious removal of prohibited content:
5. Draft Amendments 2023

Intermediary obligations for online games and fake news
Grievance redressal: Online gaming intermediaries are required to publish a mechanism for addressing complaints against violation of the Rules.
Important Sections of the act
Sections 2(d) of the act defines “affixing digital signature”, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions
means adoption of any methodology or procedure by a person for the purpose of authenticating an electronic
record by means of digital signature.
Section 2(i) “computer” is defined as any electronic, magnetic, optical or high speed data proceeding device or
systems which performs logical, arithmetic and memory functions by manipulations of electronic, magnetic or
optical impulses and includes all input, output, proceedings, storage, computer software or communication
facilities which are concerned or related to the computer in a computer system or computer network.
Section 2(zc) defines private key as the key of a key pair used to create a digital signature.
Section 2(zd) defines public key as the key of a key pair used to verify a digital signature and listed in Digital
Signature Certificate.
SECTION 5 SECTION 15
LEGAL RECOGNITION OF DIGITAL SECURE DIGITAL
SIGNATURES SIGNATURE
Section 5 of the Act gives legal recognition to If, by application of a security procedure
digital signatures. agreed to by the parties concerned, it can be
Where any law provides that information or any verified that a digital signature, at the time it
other matter shall be authenticated by affixing was affixed,
unique towasthe subscriber affixing it;
the signature or any document shall be signed or capable of identifying such subscriber;
bear the signature of any person then, created in a manner or using a means
notwithstanding anything contained in such law, under the exclusive control of the
such requirement shall be deemed to have been subscriber and is linked to the electronic
satisfied, if such information or matter is record to which it relates in such a
authenticated by means of digital signature manner
record was that if
altered thedigital
the electronic
signature would
affixed in such manner as may be prescribed by be invalidated,
the Central Government. then such digital signature shall be deemed to
be a secure digital signature.
Section 5 : https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?
actid=AC_CEN_45_76_00001_200021_1517807324077&sectionId=13015&sectionno=5&orderno=6 Section 15 : https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-
data?actid=AC_CEN_45_76_00001_200021_1517807324077&sectionId=13028&sectionno=15&orderno=19
SECTION 43
PENALTY FOR DAMAGE TO COMPUTER
If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is incharge of a computer, computer system or computer
network,
Accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network;
Downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base or information from such computer, computer system or computer
network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium
Introduces or causes to be introduced any computer contaminant or computer virus into any computer, computer system or
computer network
Damages or causes to be damaged any computer, computer system or computer network, data, computer data base or any
other programs residing in such computer, computer system or computer network
Disrupts or causes disruption of any computer, computer system or computer network
Denies or causes the denial of access to any person authorized to access any computer, computer system or computer network
by any means
Provides any assistance to any person to facilitate access to a computer, computer system or computer network in
contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or regulations made there under
Charges the services availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering with or manipulating any computer,
computer system, or computer network,
He shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation not exceeding one crore rupees to the person so affected.
actid=AC_CEN_45_76_00001_200021_1517807324077&sectionId=13057&sectionno=43&orderno=48
CIVIL COURT NOT TO HAVE APPEAL TO HIGH COURT
JURISDICTION
No court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any Any person aggrieved by any decision or order
suit or proceeding in respect of any matter of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal may file an
which an adjudicating officer appointed under appeal to the High Court within sixty days
this Act or the Cyber Appellate Tribunal from the date of communication of the
constituted under this Act is empowered by or decision or order of the Cyber Appellate
under this Act to determine and no injunction Tribunal to him on any question of fact or
shall be granted by any court or other authority law arising out of such order
in respect of any action taken or to be taken in Provided that the High Court may, if it is
pursuance of any power conferred by or under satisfied that the appellant was prevented by
this Act. sufficient cause from filing the appeal within
the said period, allow it to be filed within a
further period not exceeding sixty days
actid=AC_CEN_45_76_00001_200021_1517807324077&sectionId=13080&sectionno=61&orderno=71 Section 62 :
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_45_76_00001_200021_1517807324077&sectionId=13081&sectionno=62&orderno=72
SECTION 63 COMPOUNDING OF SECTION 64 RECOVERY
CONTRAVENTIONS OF PENALTY
It states that any contraventions under this Act A penalty imposed under this Act, if it is not
either before or after the institution of paid, shall be recovered as an arrear of land
adjudication proceedings, be compounded by revenue and the license or the Digital
the Controller or such other officer as may be Signature Certificate, as the case may be, shall
specially authorized by him in this behalf or by be suspended till the penalty is paid.
the adjudicating officer, as the case may be,
subject to such conditions as the Controller or
such other officer or the adjudicating officer
may impose.
TAMPERING WITH COMPUTER HACKING WITH COMPUTER
SOURCE DOCUMENTS SYSTEM
Whoever knowingly or intentionally conceals, Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act
destroys or alters or intentionally or knowingly referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with
causes another to conceal, destroy or alter any imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
computer source code used for a computer, years or with fine which may extend to five lakh
computer program, computer system or computer rupees or with both.
network, when the computer source code is Section 66A. Punishment for sending offensive
required to be kept or maintained by law for the messages through communication service, etc.
time being in force, shall be punishable with Section 66B. Punishment for dishonestly receiving
imprisonment up to three years, or with fine stolen computer resource or communication device.
which may extend up to two lakh rupees, or with Section 66C. Punishment for identity theft.
both. Section 66D. Punishment for cheating by
personation by using computer resource.
Section 66E. Punishment for violation of privacy.
Section 66F. Punishment for cyber terrorism.
PUBLISHING OF OBSCENE PENALTY FOR
INFORMATION MISREPRESENTATION
Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be Whoever makes any misrepresentation to,

published in the electronic form, any material which or suppresses any material fact from the
is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if Controller or the Certifying Authority for
its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt obtaining any license or Digital Signature
persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant Certificate, as the case may be, shall be
circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter punished with imprisonment for a term which
contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on may extend to two years, or with fine which
first conviction with imprisonment of either may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.
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.
SECTION 69
POWER TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS FOR INTERCEPTION OR MONITORING OR DECRYPTION OF ANY
INFORMATION THROUGH ANY COMPUTER RESOURCE
Where the Central Government or a State Government or any of its officers specially authorised by the Central
Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if satisfied that it is necessary or
expedient so to do, in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State,
friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any
cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may subject to the provisions of sub-
section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to
intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information generated,
transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource.
SECTION 69A. POWER TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS FOR BLOCKING FOR PUBLIC ACCESS OF ANY
INFORMATION THROUGH ANY COMPUTER RESOURCE
SECTION 69B. POWER TO AUTHROISE TO MONITOR AND COLLECT TRAFFIC DATA OR

INFORMATION OF ANY INFORMATION THROUGH ANY COMPUTER RESOURCE
Section 69: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_45_76_00001_200021_1517807324077&orderno=88

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF PENALTY FOR PUBLISHING FALSE
CONFIDENTIALITY PRIVACY DIGITAL SIGNATURE CERTIFICATE
Same as otherwise provided in this Act or any other No person shall publish a Digital Signature Certificate
law the time being in force, any person who, in
for or otherwise make it available to any other person
pursuance of any of the powers conferred under this with the knowledge that
Act, rules or regulations made there under, has the Certifying Authority listed in the certificate
secured access to any electronic record, book, register, has not issued it; or
correspondence, information, document or other the subscriber listed in the certificate has
material without the consent of the person concerned not accepted it; or
is closes such electronic record, book, register, the certificate has been revoked or suspended,
correspondence, information, document or other unless such publication is for the purpose of verifying a
material to any other person shall be punished with digital signature created prior to such suspension or
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two revocation.
years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub-
rupees, or with both. 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.
SECTION 75
SECTION 74
ACT TO APPLY FOR OFFENCE OR
PUBLICATION FOR FRAUDULENT
CONTRAVENTION COMMITTED OUTSIDE INDIA
PURPOSE
Whoever knowingly creates, publishes or Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the
otherwisemakes available a Digital Signature provisions of this Act shall apply also to any offence
Certificate for any fraudulent or unlawful purpose or contravention committed outside India by any
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term person irrespective of his nationality.
which may extend to two years, or with fine which For the purposes of sub-section (1), this Act shall
may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. 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.
SECTION 48
THE CYBER REGULATIONS
ESTABLISHMENT OF CYBER APPELLATE
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
TRIBUNAL
Cyber Appellate Tribunal are created to regulate and The Central Government shall, by notification,
supervise the Certifying Authorities who issue establish one or more appellate tribunals to be
Digital Signature certificates. known as the Cyber Regulations Appellate
Cyber Appellate Tribunal provide for appeal by Tribunal.
person aggrieved against an order made by the The Central Government shall also specify, in the
Adjudicating Officer under the Information notification referred to in subsection(1), the matters
Technology Act. and places in relation to which the Cyber Appellate
Section 48 to 64 of Information Technology Act Tribunal may exercise jurisdiction.
2000 contains provisions relating to Cyber Appellate
Tribunal.
SECTION 57
APPEAL CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Save as provided in sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an order made by Controller or an adjudicating officer under this Act
may prefer an appeal to a Cyber Appellate Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter.
No appeal shall lie to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal from an order made by an adjudicating officer with the consent of the parties.
Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within a period of only-five days from the date on which a copy of the order made
by the Controller or the adjudicating officer is received by the person aggrieved and it shall be in such form and be accompanied by
such fee as may be prescribed:
Provided that the Cyber Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of only-five days if it is
satisfied that there was sufficient cause or not filing it within that period.
On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Cyber Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal, an
opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or setting aside the order appealed
against.
The Cyber Appellate Tribunal shall send a copy of every order made by it to" the parties to the appeal and to the concerned
Controller or adjudicating officer.
The appeal filed before the Cyber Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by it as expeditiously as possible and
endeavor shall be made by it to dispose of the appeal finally within six months from the date of receipt of the appeal.
SECTION 61 SECTION 62 APPEAL TO
CIVIL COURT NOT TO HAVE HIGH COURT
JURISDICTION
No court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the
or
proceeding in respect of any matter which an Cyber Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the
adjudicating officer appointed under this Act or the High Court within sixty days from the date of
Cyber Appellate Tribunal constituted under this Act communication of the decision or order of the Cyber
is empowered by or under this Act to determine and Appellate Tribunal to him on any question of fact or
no
injunction shall be granted by any court or law arising out of such order
other
authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that
in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from
Act. filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be
filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.
SECTION 63 COMPOUNDING OF SECTION 64 RECOVERY OF
CONTRAVENTIONS PENALTY OR
CONTRAVENTIONS
Any contravention under this Chapter may, either before or after A penalty imposed under this Act, if it is not paid,
the institution of adjudication proceedings, be compounded by the
Controller or such other officer as may be specially authorized by
shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue and
him in this behalf or by the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, the license or the Digital Signature Certificate, as the
subject to such conditions as the Controller or such other officer or case may be, shall be suspended till the penalty is paid
the adjudicating officer may specify:
Provided that such sum shall not, in any case, exceed the
maximum amount of the penalty which may be imposed under
this Act for the contravention so compounded.
Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to a person who commits the
same or similar contravention within a period of three years from
the date on which the first contravention, committed by him, was
compounded.
Where any contravention has been compounded under sub-section
(1), no proceeding or further proceeding, as the case may be, shall
be taken against the person guilty of such contravention in respect
of the contravention so compounded.
Cases on IT ACT 2000
Important Case Laws on Information Technology Act, 2000
State of Tamil Nadu v. Dr. L Prakash (W.P.M.P.No. 10120 of 2002)
In this case, an FIR was registered against Dr. L Prakash under Section 67 of the
IT Act, 2000 read with Section 4 & 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women
Act, Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 120B & 506 (2) of the IPC. The said
case was registered as Dr. L Prakash was accused of making pornographic videos
and then sending those to the US & France for publication on pornographic
websites. The Fast Track Court convicted the accused under the aforesaid
provisions and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. A fine of Rs. 1.27
lakh was also imposed on him. This case is a landmark in the Cyber Crime Law as
it was the first time that pornographic websites and their brokers were targeted in
India.
Amar Singh v. Union of India [(2011) 4 AWC 3726 SC]

In this case, the petitioner had alleged that his calls were being tapped unauthorizedly by his
telecom service provider. He had claimed that the alleged tapping was violating his fundamental
right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The service provider had argued that
it was complying with the government orders. This case is important in the context of Sections 69,
69A, and 69B of the IT Act, 2000. The court observed that a telecom service provider performs a
function of public nature. It is his inherent duty to act carefully and in a responsible manner.
Furthermore, it was observed that when the orders of the government ‘to tap calls’ have gross
mistakes, then the service provider must verify the authenticity of such orders. The court also
directed the Central Government to frame certain directions/guidelines to prevent unauthorized
interception of calls.
Nirmaljit Singh Narula v. Indijobs at Hubpages.Com [CS (OS) 871 / 2012]
This case relates to an alleged defamatory article published by Defendant against the Petitioner
(popularly known as ‘Nirmal Baba’). It is an important case in the context of Section 79 of the IT
Act, 2000 since the petitioner had sent a legal notice to the intermediary, on whose website the
‘defamatory’ article was published. The intermediary refused to remove the ‘defamatory’ article, so
the instant case was filed. The court held that an intermediary is obliged to remove unlawful
content from its website if it receives a notice from the affected party, claiming that any illegal
content is being circulated through the intermediary’s service. An intermediary is not liable for 3rd
party content if it removes such content upon receiving notice. In this case, an injunction was issued
against Defendant barring it from publishing any further defamatory content against the Petitioner,
and the intermediary was ordered to produce the IP log of the 3rd party user who had published the
‘defamatory’ article.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [AIR 2015 SC 1523]

In this case, the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 was challenged. The petitioner contended that this
section infringes their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. It was submitted that the restrictions
imposed by the said section are not even saved or allowed by Article 19 (2) of the Constitution. Another primary
contention put forward by the petitioner was that the said section suffers from the vice of vagueness because the terms
used in the Section cannot be defined. So, that creates a wide scope for arbitrary and whimsical action by the State
against a large number of innocent persons.It was also argued that the said Section violates the Right to Equality
provided by Article 14 since the Section unreasonably differentiates between the people who use the internet and the
people who use other mediums of communication. Respondent, on the other hand, argued that the legislature is in the
best position to understand the needs of the people. So, the court must not interfere in the legislative process until there
is a clear violation of rights provided under Part III of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the presumption
is also in the favor of the constitutionality of a statute and that the mere possibility of abuse of a particular provision of
a statute cannot be a valid ground to declare it invalid. After hearing detailed arguments from both sides, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 in its entirety as being violative of Article 19 (1) (A). It is
observed that the said Section is not saved under Article 19 (2).However, the court upheld the constitutional validity of
Sections 69A and 79 of the IT Act, 2000 along with the IT (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access of
Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
Cases
Caseson
onIT
ITACT
ACT2000
2000
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [AIR 2015 SC 1523]
Section 43 Penalty and Compensation for damage to etc
In this case, the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 was challenged. The petitioner contended that this
computer,
section computer
infringes system, Related
their fundamental right toCase:
freedom Mphasis BPO
of speech andFraud: 2005ItIn
expression. wasDecember
submitted 2004,
that thefour call centre
restrictions
employees,
imposed working
by the at anare
said section outsourcing
not even savedfacility operated
or allowed by Mphasis
by Article 19 (2) ofinthe
India, obtainedAnother
Constitution. PIN codes from four
primary
customersput
contention of MphasiS'
forward by client, Citi Group.
the petitioner wasThese employees
that the were
said section not authorized
suffers from the vice toof
obtain the PINs.
vagueness In association
because the terms
with in
used others, the call
the Section centre
cannot employees
be defined. opened
So, that new
creates accounts
a wide scope atforIndian banks
arbitrary and using falseaction
whimsical identities.
by theWithin
State two
against
months,a they
large used
numbertheof innocent
PINs persons.It was also argued that the said Section violates the Right to Equality
and account
provided
informationby Article
gleaned 14during
since the Section
their unreasonably
employment differentiates
at Mphasis between
to transfer moneythe people whobank
from the use the internetofand
accounts the
CitiGroup
people who use other mediums of communication. Respondent, on the other hand, argued that the legislature is in the
customers to the new accounts at Indian banks.
best position to understand the needs of the people. So, the court must not interfere in the legislative process until there
is a clear violation of rights provided under Part III of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the presumption
Byalso
is April
in 2005, theofIndian
the favor police had tipped
the constitutionality of a off to the
statute andscam by amere
that the U.S.possibility
bank, andof quickly identif
abuse of i ed theprovision
a particular individualsof
ainvolved in the be
statute cannot scam. Arrests
a valid were
ground made when
to declare those
it invalid. individuals
After attempted
hearing detailed to withdraw
arguments cash sides,
from both from the
theHon’ble
falsif i ed
accounts,Court
Supreme $426,000
struckwas
down stolen; the66A
Section amount
of therecovered
IT Act, 2000 wasin$230,000.
its entirety as being violative of Article 19 (1) (A). It is
observed that the said Section is not saved under Article 19 (2).However, the court upheld the constitutional validity of
Verdict. 69A
Sections Courtandheld that
79 of theSection
IT Act, 43(a) was applicable
2000 along with the IThere due to &
(Procedure the nature offor
Safeguards unauthorized
Blocking foraccess
Access involved
of to
commit transactions.
Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
Section 65 Tampering with Computer Source Documents Related Case:
Syed Asifuddin and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradeshin this case, 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.
Findings of the court
1. As per section 2 of the Information Technology Act, any electronic, magnetic or optical device used
for storage of information received through satellite, microwave or other communication media and
the devices which are programmable and capable of retrieving any information by manipulations of
electronic, magnetic or optical impulses is a computer which can be used as computer system in a
computer network.
2. The instructions or programme given to computer in a language known to the computer are not seen
by the users of the computer/consumers of computer functions. This is known as source code in
computer parlance.
Section 66
Computer Related offenses
Related Case: Kumar v/s Whiteley In this case the 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. 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. 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).
THANK
YOU
Indian Information Technology Act – 2000 (Click
here)

Lab PPT It Act 2000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lab PPT It Act 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Information Technology Act, 2000

Applies to Doesn’t apply to

2.Amendment in 2013 (IT Amendment Act, 2013):

3.Amendment in 2016 (IT Amendment Act, 2016):

4. Notified Amendments 2022

5. Draft Amendments 2023

Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be Whoever makes any misrepresentation to,

SECTION 69B. POWER TO AUTHROISE TO MONITOR AND COLLECT TRAFFIC DATA OR

Section 69: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_45_76_00001_200021_1517807324077&orderno=88

Amar Singh v. Union of India [(2011) 4 AWC 3726 SC]

Nirmaljit Singh Narula v. Indijobs at Hubpages.Com [CS (OS) 871 / 2012]

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [AIR 2015 SC 1523]

Findings of the court

You might also like