Relevant Provisions under IT Act, 2000 related to Investigation of Cyber Crimes

Subject - Cyber Laws & Rights
M. tech. 3rd Sem., ISM.
By: Prashant Vats,
M.tech., Ph.D.
INDIRA GANDHI DELHI TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
FOR WOMEN

Relevant Provisions under IT Act,
2000 related to Investigation of
Cyber Crimes

Section 28 in The Information
Technology Act, 2000
• 28 Power to investigate contraventions.
• contraventionan action which offends against a law, treaty,
or other ruling.
• (1) The Controller of Certifying Authorities (CCA) or any
officer authorized by him in this behalf shall take up for
investigation any contravention of the provisions of this
Act, rules or regulations made thereunder.
• (2) The Controller or any officer authorized by him in this
behalf shall exercise the like powers which are conferred on
Income-tax authorities under Chapter XIII of the Income-tax
Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), and shall exercise such powers,
subject to such limitations laid down under that Act.

Section 29 in The Information
• 29 Access to computers and data. –
• (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1) of section
69, the Controller or any person authorized by him shall, if he has
reasonable cause to suspect that 31 [any contravention of the
provisions of this Chapter] has been committed, have access to any
computer system, any apparatus, data or any other material
connected with such system, for the purpose of searching or
causing a search to be made for obtaining any information or data
contained in or available to such computer system.
• (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the Controller or any person
authorized by him may, by order, direct any person in charge of, or
otherwise concerned with the operation of, the computer system,
data apparatus or material, to provide him with such reasonable
technical and other assistance as he may consider necessary.

Section 46: Power to Adjudicate
• (1) For the purpose of adjudging under this Chapter
whether any person has committed a contravention
of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule,
regulation, direction or order made thereunder which
renders him liable to pay penalty or compensation,
the Central Government shall, subject to the
provisions of sub-section(3), appoint any officer not
below the rank of a Director to the Government of
India or an equivalent officer of a State Government
to be an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry in
the manner prescribed by the Central Government.

• (1A) The adjudicating officer appointed under sub-section (1) shall
exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate matters in which the claim for
injury or medical malpractice or damage does not exceed rupees
five crore.
• Provided that the jurisdiction in respect of claim for injury or
damage exceeding rupees five crore shall vest with the competent
court.
• (2) The adjudicating officer shall, after giving the person referred to
in sub-section (1) a reasonable opportunity for making
representation in the matter and if, on such inquiry, he is satisfied
that the person has committed the contravention, he may impose
such penalty as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of
that section.
• (3) No person shall be appointed as an adjudicating officer unless
he possesses such experience in the field of Information Technology
and Legal or Judicial experience as may be prescribed by the Central
Government.

• (4) Where more than one adjudicating officers are
appointed, the Central Government shall specify by order
the matters and places with respect to which such officers
shall exercise their jurisdiction.
• (5) Every adjudicating officer shall have the powers of a civil
court which are conferred on the Cyber Appellate Tribunal
under sub-section (2) of section 58, and –
• (a) all proceedings before it shall be deemed to be judicial
proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of
the Indian Penal Code;
(b) shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of
sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
(c) shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for purposes of order
XXI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Sec. 47. Factors to be taken into account by the
adjudicating officer
• –While adjudging the quantum of compensation
under this Chapter, the adjudicating officer shall
have due regard to the following factors,
namely:–
• (a) the amount of gain of unfair advantage,
wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the
default;
• (b) the amount of loss caused to any person as a
result of the default;
• (c) the repetitive nature of the default.

OFFENCES under IT Act 2000
• 65. Tampering with computer source documents.
• 66. Computer related offences.
• 66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication
service, etc.
• 66B. Punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or
communication device.
• 66C. Punishment for identity theft.
• 66D. Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource.
• 66E. Punishment for violation of privacy.
• 66F. Punishment for cyber terrorism.
• 67. Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in
electronic form.
• 67A. Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing
sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form.
• 67B. Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting
children in sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form.

67C. Preservation and retention of
information by intermediaries
• (1) Intermediary shall preserve and retain such
information as may be specified for such
duration and in such manner and format as
the Central Government may prescribe.
• (2) any intermediary who intentionally or
knowingly contravenes the provisions of sub-
section (1) shall be punished with an
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and also be liable to fine.

• 69A. Power to issue directions for blocking for
public access of any information through any
computer resource.
• 69B. Power to authorize to monitor and
collect traffic data or information through any
computer resource for cyber security.
• 70. Protected system.

70A. National nodal agency
• (1) The Central Government may, by notification
published in the Official Gazette, designate any
organization of the Government as the national nodal
agency in respect of Critical Information Infrastructure
Protection.
• (2) The national nodal agency designated under sub-
section (1) shall be responsible for all measures
including Research and Development relating to
protection of Critical Information Infrastructure.
• (3) The manner of performing functions and duties of
the agency referred to in sub-section (1) shall be such
as may be prescribed.

• 71. Penalty for misrepresentation.
• 72. Penalty for Breach of confidentiality and
privacy.
• 72A. Punishment for disclosure of information
in breach of lawful contract.
• 73. Penalty for publishing electronic signature
Certificate false in certain particulars.
• 74. Publication for fraudulent purpose.
• 75. Act to apply for offence or contravention
committed outside India

76. Confiscation of Electronic Evidence
• Any computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks, tape
drives or any other accessories related thereto, in respect of which
any provision of this Act, rules, orders or regulations made
thereunder 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 thereunder, 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 thereunder as it may think
fit.

78. Power to investigate offences
• Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
a police officer not below the rank of 1
[Inspector] shall investigate any offence under
this Act.

79A. Central Government to notify
Examiner of Electronic Evidence
• The Central Government may, for the purposes of
providing expert opinion on electronic form evidence
before any court or other authority specify, by
notification in the Official Gazette, any Department,
body or agency of the Central Government or a State
Government as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence.
• Explanation.–For the purposes of this section,
―electronic form evidence‖ means any information of
probative value that is either stored or transmitted in
electronic form and includes computer evidence,
digital audio, digital video, cell phones, digital fax
machines.

80. Power of police officer and other officers to enter, search, etc
• (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), any police officer, not below the rank of a
[Inspector], or any other officer of the Central Government or a State
Government authorised by the Central Government in this behalf may
enter any public place and search and arrest without warrant any person
found therein who is reasonably suspected of having committed or of
committing or of being about to commit any offence under this Act.
• Explanation.–For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression ―public
place‖ includes any public conveyance, any hotel, any shop or any other
place intended for use by, or accessible to the public.
• (2) Where any person is arrested under sub-section (1) by an officer other
than a police officer, such officer shall, without unnecessary delay, take or
send the person arrested before a magistrate having jurisdiction in the
case or before the officer-in-charge of a police station.
• (3) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
shall, subject to the provisions of this section, apply, so far as may be, in
relation to any entry, search or arrest, made under this section

Relevant provisions under Information
relating to Jurisdiction

19. Recognition of foreign Certifying
Authorities
• (1) Subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be
specified by regulations, the Controller may with the
previous approval of the Central Government, and by
notification in the Official Gazette, recognize any foreign
Certifying Authority as a Certifying Authority for the
purposes of this Act.
• (2) Where any Certifying Authority is recognized under sub-
section (1), the 2 [electronic signature] Certificate issued by
such Certifying Authority shall be valid for the purposes of
this Act.
• (3) The Controller may, if he is satisfied that any Certifying
Authority has contravened any of the conditions and
restrictions subject to which it was granted recognition
under sub-section (1) he may, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, by notification in the Official Gazette, revoke such
recognition

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.

Relevant provisions under Information
Technology Act, 2000,
relating to Evidence

Provisions for Electronic Records
• Sec 4. Legal recognition of electronic records.
• Sec. 5. Legal recognition of electronic signatures.
• Sec. 6. Use of electronic records and electronic
signatures in Government and its agencies.
• Sec. 7. Retention of electronic records.
• Sec. 7A. Audit of documents, etc., maintained in
electronic form.
• Sec. 8. Publication of rule, regulation, etc., in
Electronic Gazette.

SECURE ELECTRONIC RECORDS AND
SECURE ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE
• Sec. 14. Secure electronic record.
• Sec. 15. Secure electronic signature.
• Sec. 16. Security procedures and practices.

ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE CERTIFICATES
• Sec. 35. Certifying authority to issue electronic
signature Certificate.
• Sec. 36. Representations upon issuance of
Digital signature Certificate.
• Sec. 37. Suspension of Digital Signature
Certificate.
• Sec. 38. Revocation of Digital Signature
Certificate.
• Sec. 39. Notice of suspension or revocation.

EXAMINER OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
• Sec. 79A. Central Government to notify Examiner of
Electronic Evidence
• The Central Government may, for the purposes of
providing expert opinion on electronic form evidence
before any court or other authority specify, by
notification in the Official Gazette, any Department,
body or agency of the Central Government or a State
Government as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence.
• Explanation.–For the purposes of this section,
―electronic form evidence‖ means any information of
probative value that is either stored or transmitted in
electronic form and includes computer evidence,
digital audio, digital video, cell phones, digital fax
machines.

58. Procedure and powers of the
Appellate Tribunal
• (2) The 1 [Appellate Tribunal] shall have, for the purposes of
discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are
vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters,
namely:–
• (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and
examining him on oath;
• (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents or other
electronic records;
• (c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
• (d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or
documents;
• (e) reviewing its decisions;
• (f) dismissing an application for default or deciding it ex parte;
• (g) any other matter which may be prescribed.

Relevant provisions under Indian Penal
Code for combating Cyber Crimes

Hacking and Data Theft
• Sections 43 and 66 of the IT Act penalize a number of activities
ranging from hacking into a computer network, data theft,
introducing and spreading viruses through computer networks,
damaging computers or computer networks or computer
programmes, disrupting any computer or computer system or
computer network, denying an authorised person access to a
computer or computer network, damaging or destroying
information residing in a computer etc
• Section 378 of the IPC relating to "theft" of movable property will
apply to the theft of any data, online or otherwise, since section 22
of the IPC states that the words "movable property" are intended to
include corporeal property of every description, except land and
things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything
which is attached to the earth. The maximum punishment for theft
under section 378 of the IPC is imprisonment of up to 3 (three)
years or a fine or both.

• Section 424 of the IPC states that "whoever dishonestly or fraudulently
conceals or removes any property of himself or any other person, or
dishonestly or fraudulently assists in the concealment or removal thereof,
or dishonestly releases any demand or claim to which he is entitled, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description1 for a term which may
extend to 2 (two) years, or with fine, or with both." This aforementioned
section will also apply to data theft. The maximum punishment under
section 424 is imprisonment of up to 2 (two) years or a fine or both.
• Section 425 of the IPC deals with mischief and states that "whoever with
intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or
damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any
property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as
destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits
mischief". Needless to say, damaging computer systems and even denying
access to a computer system will fall within the aforesaid section 425 of
the IPC. The maximum punishment for mischief as per section 426 of the
IPC is imprisonment of up to 3 (three) months or a fine or both.
Hacking and Data Theft

Receipt of stolen property:
• Section 66B of the IT Act prescribes punishment for dishonestly
receiving any stolen computer resource or communication device.
This section requires that the person receiving the stolen property
ought to have done so dishonestly or should have reason to believe
that it was stolen property. The punishment for this offence under
Section 66B of the IT Act is imprisonment of up to 3 (three) years or
a fine of up to Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) or both.
• Section 411 of the IPC too prescribes punishment for dishonestly
receiving stolen property and is worded in a manner that is almost
identical to section 66B of the IT Act. The punishment under section
411 of the IPC is imprisonment of either description for a term of
up to 3 (three) years, or with fine, or with both. Please note that
the only difference in the prescribed punishments is that under the
IPC, there is no maximum cap on the fine.

Identity theft and cheating by
personation
• Section 66C of the IT Act prescribes punishment for identity theft
and provides that anyone who fraudulently or dishonestly makes
use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique
identification feature of any other person shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
3 (three) years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to
Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac).
• Section 66D of the IT Act prescribes punishment for 'cheating by
personation by using computer resource' and provides that any
person who by means of any communication device or computer
resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
3 (three) years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to
Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac).

• Section 419 of the IPC also prescribes punishment for 'cheating by
personation' and provides that any person who cheats by personation
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to 3 (three) years or with a fine or with both. A person
is said to be guilty of 'cheating by personation' if such person cheats by
pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one
person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person
other than he or such other person really is.
• The provisions of sections 463, 465 and 468 of the IPC dealing with forgery
and "forgery for the purpose of cheating", may also be applicable in a case
of identity theft. Section 468 of the IPC prescribes punishment for forgery
for the purpose of cheating and provides a punishment of imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to 7 (seven) years and
also a fine. Forgery has been defined in section 463 of the IPC to mean the
making of a false document or part thereof with the intent to cause
damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or
title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any
express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud
may be committed.
personation

personation
• In this context, reference may also be made to
section 420 of the IPC that provides that any
person who cheats and thereby dishonestly
induces the person deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to make, alter or
destroy the whole or any part of a valuable
security, or anything which is signed or sealed,
and which is capable of being converted into a
valuable security shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to 7 (seven) years, and shall
also be liable to fine.

Obscenity
• Sections 67, 67A and 67B of the IT Act prescribe punishment for
publishing or transmitting, in electronic form: (i) obscene material; (ii)
material containing sexually explicit act, etc.; and (iii) material depicting
children in sexually explicit act, etc. respectively.
• The provisions of sections 292 and 294 of the IPC would also be applicable
for offences of the nature described under sections 67, 67A and 67B of the
IT Act.
• Section 292 of the IPC provides that any person who, inter alia, sells,
distributes, publicly exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation or has
in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting,
representation or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever shall be
punishable on a first conviction with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to 2 (two) years, and with fine which may
extend to Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand) and, in the event of a second
or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to 5 (five) years, to be accompanied by a fine
which may extend to Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand).
• Section 294 of the IPC provides that any person who, to the annoyance of
others, does any obscene act in any public place, or sings, recites or utters
any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to 3 (three) months, or with fine, or with both.

Violation of privacy
• Section 66E of the IT Act prescribes punishment for violation of privacy
and provides that any person who intentionally or knowingly captures,
publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without
his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that
person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 3
(three) years or with fine not exceeding Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lac) or
with both.
• There is no provision in the IPC that mirrors Section 66E of the IT Act,
though sections 292 and 509 of the IPC do cover this offence partially.
• Section 292 of the IPC has been discussed above.
• Section 509 of the IPC provides that if any person intending to insult the
modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or
exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or
that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes
upon the privacy of such woman, such person shall be punished with
simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to 1 (one) year, or with
fine, or with both. Unlike section 66E of the IT Act which applies to victims
of both genders, section 509 of the IPC applies only if the victim is a
woman.

Cyber terrorism
• Section 66F of the IT Act prescribes punishment
for cyber terrorism.
• Whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber
terrorism shall be punishable with imprisonment
which may extend to imprisonment for life.
• There is no provision in the IPC that mirrors
section 66F of the IT Act, though section 121 of
the IPC (waging, or attempting to wage war, or
abetting waging of war, against the Government
of India) does cover this offence partially.

Whether Compoundable, Cognizable and Bailable
• Most of the cyber-crimes covered under the IT Act are punishable with imprisonment of 3
(three) years or less. The cyber-crimes which are punishable with imprisonment of more than
3 (three) years are:
• publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form under section 67 of the IT Act;
• publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form
under section 67A of the IT Act;
• publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc., in
electronic form under section 67B of the IT Act; and
• cyber terrorism under section 66F of the IT Act.
• All of the cyber-crimes under the IPC are bailable other than offences under section 420
(cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), section 468 (forgery for the purpose
of cheating), section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property), section 378 (theft) and
section 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent),
which are non-bailable.
• Offences under sections 463 and 465 (forgery), sections 425 and 426 (mischief), section 468
(forgery for the purpose of cheating), section 469 (forgery for the purpose of harming
reputation) and section 292 (sale, etc., of obscene books, etc.) of the IPC are non-
compoundable offences while offences under sections 378 and 379 (theft), 420 (cheating
and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), sections 425 and 426 (mischief when the only
loss or damage caused is loss or damage to a private person), section 509 (word, gesture or
act intended to insult the modesty of a woman), section 411 (Dishonestly receiving stolen
property) and section 419 (Punishment for cheating by personation) of the IPC are
compoundable offences. Of these, offences under sections 420 and 509 can be compounded
only with the permission of the court. Most of the cyber crimes under the IPC are cognizable
other than the offences under sections 425 and 426 (mischief) and sections 463 and 465
(forgery) which are non-cognizable.

Whether Compoundable, Cognizable and Bailable
• The overlap between the provisions of the IPC and the IT Act may sometimes lead
to an anomalous situation wherein certain offences are bailable under the IPC and
not under the IT Act and vice versa and certain offences are compoundable under
the IPC and not under the IT Act and vice versa.
• For instance, in case of hacking and data theft, offences under sections 43 and 66
of the IT Act that are bailable and compoundable while offences under section 378
of the IPC are non-bailable and offences under section 425 of the IPC are non-
compoundable.
• Further, in case of the offence of receipt of stolen property, the offence under
section 66B of the IT Act is bailable while the offence under section 411 of the IPC
is non-bailable. Similarly, in case of the offence of identity theft and cheating by
personation, the offences under sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act are
compoundable and bailable while the offences under sections 463, 465 and 468 of
the IPC are non-compoundable and the offences under sections 468 and 420 of
the IPC are non-bailable.
• Finally, in case of obscenity, the offences under sections 67, 67A and 67B of the IT
Act are non-bailable while the offences under section 292 and 294 of the IPC are
bailable. This issue has been dealt with by the Bombay High Court in the case
of Gagan Harsh Sharma v. The State of Maharashtra2 (discussed below) wherein
offences under sections 408 and 420 of the IPC that are non-bailable and cannot
be compounded other than with the permission of the court were in conflict with
offences under sections 43, 65 and 66 of the IT Act that are bailable and
compoundable.

Amendments to the IPC to cover cyber-crimes
• The Indian legislature has from time to time, made a number of
amendments to the IPC, to specifically cover cyber-crimes. Some of
the important amendments are as follows:
• a new section 29A was created to define "electronic record" by
linking it with the definition given in the IT Act6;
• a new sub-section (3) was inserted in section 4 of the IPC (relating
to the extension of the IPC to extra territorial offences) that states
that the provisions of the IPC shall be applicable to any person in
any place "without and beyond India", committing an offence
targeting a computer resource located in India7;
• in sections 118 and 119 of the IPC (that deal with the concealment
of a design to commit an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life and a public servant concealing a design to
commit an offence which it is his duty to prevent, respectively), the
words "voluntarily conceals by any act or omission or by the use of
encryption or any other information hiding tool, the existence of a
design" were inserted before the words "to commit such offence or
makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting
such design"8;

• in section 464 of the IPC (which penalises the making of a false
document), the phrase "digital signature" was replaced with the
phrase "electronic signature" in all places. The section was also
amended to include the making of false electronic records and
affixing electronic signatures under its ambit and the phrase
"affixing electronic signature" was given the same meaning as it has
under the IT Act9;
• "electronic record" was included within the ambit of sections 164,
172, 173, 175, 192, 204, 463, 466, 468, 469, 470, 471, 474 and 476
of the IPC that earlier only provided for "documents", "books",
"paper", "writing" or "records", as the case may be;
• in section 466 of the IPC (which deals with forgery of court records
or of public registers), the term "register" was defined to include
any list, data or record of any entries maintained in an "electronic
form", as defined in section 2(1) (r) of the IT Act10; and
• a new section 354D was inserted in the IPC that introduces the
offence of cyber stalking, which has been discussed above.
Amendments to the IPC to cover cyber-crimes

Relevant provisions under Indian
Penal Code relating to Jurisdiction of
cyber crimes

General Jurisdiction in Computer Crimes
• The law of jurisdiction with respect to crimes relating to computers
is the same as that relating to traditional crimes.
• The theory of subjective territoriality would apply.
• In India, Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relates
to jurisdiction of courts with regard to criminal matters.
• The foremost and most commonly applied theory of territoriality is
embodied in section 177 of the Code in the following words:
• 177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.- Every offence shall
ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction it was committed. Thus, any computer crime
committed, say, in Indore, would be tried by the criminal courts in
Indore itself. However, computer crime, by its very nature, is
capable of being committed at more than one place at the same
time.
• For instance, a person sitting in Mumbai can hack into a computer
at the IISc at Bangalore through a proxy server located at Kanpur. In
such situations, the offence can be inquired into and tried by a
court having jurisdiction over any of such areas where the crime has
been committed.

General Jurisdiction in Computer Crimes
• Section 178 of the Code provides for this kind of a situation: 178.
Place of inquiry or trial.-
• a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence
was committed, or
• b) Where an offence is committed partly in one local area and
partly in another, or
• c) Where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be
committed in more local areas than one, or
• d) Where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it
may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any
of such local areas.
• Thus, based upon the subjective territoriality theory and the above
provisions of our criminal procedural law, the requirement that our
courts should have jurisdiction to book persons found guilty of
committing crimes relating to computers within the territory of
India is well taken care of.
• However, issues arise when someone is sitting across the border
and initiates a digital action which has a direct adverse
consequence within the territory of a state

APPLICABLE LAW IN COMPUTER CRIMES
• In India, the Information Technology Act delves
deep into the issue of applicable law in computer
crimes. It clarifies that any act which is
committed either within or without India would
be illegal if it is an offence under the Act.
• To begin with, sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the
Act states that:
• It shall extend to the whole of India and, save as
otherwise provided in this Act, it applies also to
any offence or contravention thereunder
committed outside India by any person

Sec.75 of the IT Act
• 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 involved a
computer4 , computer system5 or computer network6
located in India.

Section 3 of the Indian Penal Code
reads as under:
• Punishment of offences committed beyond but which by
law may be tried within India. Any person liable, by any
Indian law, to be tried for an offence, committed beyond
India shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this
Code for any act committed beyond India in the same
manner as if such act had been committed within India.
• This section will apply in a situation where the accused, at
the time of committing the offence that he/she is charged
with, is amenable to Indian courts.
• Section 3 of the IPC has a broad ambit and it extends to any
person not necessarily a citizen of India but governed by
Indian law for acts committed beyond India.

Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code
• Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code, on the other hand, applies the
Nationality doctrine. It deals with acts and omissions of Indian citizens
abroad.
• It further regulates the action of any person irrespective of his/her
nationality, if such person happens to be on a ship or aircraft registered in
India.
• The section reads as under:
• Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences.-
• The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by –
• (1) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India;
• (2) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may
be.
• Explanation – In this section the word “offence” includes every act
committed outside India, which if committed in India would be punishable
under this Code.
• Thus, the provisions of the Code would apply if an Indian citizen anywhere
outside India commits any computer crime punishable under the Indian
Penal Code, like digital forgery or cyberstalking

• The Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure
and the Information Technology Act cover issues
pertaining to jurisdiction of computer crimes and also
the law applicable in such cases.
• Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives
jurisdiction to the courts in India to deal with any
computer crime which leaves its impact or effect
within the territorial boundaries of India.
• The IT Act and the Indian Penal Code are the laws
applicable for such crimes and the Courts have to
employ them to ascertain whether a particular action
or omission is a crime and if the accused is found
guilty, to award punishment as provided under the said
laws.

Relevant provisions under Indian
Penal Code relating to Evidence w.r.t.
Cyber Crime

The Indian Penal Code, 1860
• The Indian Penal Code was amended by inserting the word
‘electronic’ thereby treating the electronic records and documents
on a par with physical records and documents.
• The Sections dealing with false entry in a record or false document
etc (e.g. 192, 204, 463, 464, 464, 468 to 470, 471, 474, 476 etc)
have since been amended as ‘electronic record and electronic
document’ thereby bringing within the ambit of IPC.
• Now, electronic record and electronic documents has been treated
just like physical records and documents during commission of acts
of forgery or falsification of physical records in a crime.
• After the above amendment, the investigating agencies file the
cases/ charge-sheet quoting the relevant sections from IPC under
section 463, 464, 468 and 469 read with the IT Act/IT Act
Amendment under Sections 43 and 66 in like offences to ensure the
evidence and/or punishment can be covered and proved under
either of these or under both legislation.

IPC Section 192. Fabricating false
evidence
• Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or [makes
any false entry in any book or record, or electronic
record or makes any document or electronic record
containing a false statement,] intending that such
circumstance, false entry or false statement may
appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a
proceeding taken by law before a public servant as
such, or before an arbitrator, and that such
circumstance, false entry or false statement, so
appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in
such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the
evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching
any point material to the result of such proceeding is
said “to fabricate false evidence”.

Section 204 in The Indian Penal Code
• 204. Destruction of [document or electronic record] to prevent its
production as evidence.—
• Whoever secretes or destroys any [document or electronic record]
which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence in a
Court of Justice,
• or in any proceeding lawfully held before a public servant, as such,
or obliterates or renders illegible the whole or any part of such
[document or electronic record] with the intention of preventing
the same from being produced or used as evidence before such
Court or public servant as aforesaid,
• or after he shall have been lawfully summoned or required to
produce the same for that purpose,
• shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

• 63. Forgery.— [Whoever makes any false
documents or false electronic record or part of
a document or electronic record, with intent
to cause damage or injury], to the public or to
any person, or to support any claim or title, or
to cause any person to part with property, or
to enter into any express or implied contract,
or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud
may be committed, commits forgery.

Section 468. Forgery for purpose of
cheating
• "Section 468. Forgery for purpose of
cheating:--
• Whoever commits forgery, intending that the
(document or Electronic Record forged) shall
be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Section 469 in the Indian Penal Code
• Section 469 in The Indian Penal Code
• Forgery for purpose of harming reputation.—
• Whoever commits forgery, [intending that the
document or electronic record forged] shall
harm the reputation of any party, or knowing
that it is likely to be used for that purpose,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

• . Forged [document or electronic record].—
• A false [document or electronic record] made
wholly or in part by forgery is designated “a
forged [document or electronic record]”.

• Using as genuine a forged [document or
electronic record].—
• Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as
genuine any [document or electronic record]
which he knows or has reason to believe to be
a forged [document or electronic record], shall
be punished in the same manner as if he had
forged such [document or electronic record].

• Having possession of document described in section 466 or 467,
knowing it to be forged and intending to use it as genuine.—
• [Whoever has in his possession any document or electronic record,
knowing the same to be forged and intending that the same shall
fraudulently or dishonestly be used as genuine, shall, if the
document or electronic record is one of the description mentioned
in section 466 of the Indian Penal Code],
• be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
• and if the document is one of the description mentioned in section
467 of the Indian Penal Code, shall be punished with [imprisonment
for life], or with imprisonment of either description, for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

• counterfeiting device or mark used for authenticating documents
other than those described in section 467, or possessing counterfeit
marked material.—
• Whoever counterfeits upon, or in the substance of, any material,
any device or mark used for the purpose of authenticating [any
document or electronic record] other than the documents
described in section 467 of this Code,
• intending that such device or mark shall be used for the purpose of
giving the appearance of authenticity to any document then forged
or thereafter to be forged on such material, or who, with such
intent,
• has in his possession any material upon or in the substance of
which any such device or mark has been counterfeited, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The Indian Evidence Act 1872
• Prior to enactment of IT Act, all evidences in a court
were in the physical form only.
• After existence of IT Act, the electronic records and
documents were recognized.
• The definition part of Indian Evidence Act was
amended as “all documents including electronic
records” were substituted.
• Other words e.g. ‘digital signature’, ‘electronic form’,
‘secure electronic record’ ‘information’ as used in the
IT Act, were also inserted to make them part of the
evidentiary importance under the Act.
• The important amendment was seen by recognition of
admissibility of electronic records as evidence as
enshrined in Section 65B of the Act.

The Bankers’ Books Evidence (BBE) Act 1891
• Before passing of IT Act, a bank was supposed to produce the original ledger
or other physical register or document during evidence before a Court.
• After enactment of IT Act, the definitions part of the BBE Act stood amended
as: "’bankers ' books’ include ledgers, day-books, cashbooks, account-books
and all other books used in the ordinary business of a bank whether kept in
the written form or as printouts of data stored in a floppy, disc, tape or any
other form of electro-magnetic data storage device”.
• When the books consist of printouts of data stored in a floppy, disc, tape etc, a
printout of such entry ...certified in accordance with the provisions ....to the
effect that it is a printout of such entry or a copy of such printout by the
principal accountant or branch manager; and
• (b) a certificate by a person in-charge of computer system containing a brief
description of the computer system and the particulars of the safeguards
adopted by the system to ensure that data is entered or any other operation
performed only by authorized persons; the safeguards adopted to prevent
and detect unauthorized change of data ...to retrieve data that is lost due to
systemic failure or ....
• The above amendment in the provisions in Bankers Books Evidence Act
recognized the printout from a computer system and other electronic
document as a valid document during course of evidence, provided, such
print-out or electronic document is accompanied by a certificate in terms as
mentioned above.

Relevant Provisions under IT Act, 2000 related to Investigation of Cyber Crimes

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Relevant Provisions under IT Act, 2000 related to Investigation of Cyber Crimes

Similar to Relevant Provisions under IT Act, 2000 related to Investigation of Cyber Crimes (20)

More from Dr. Prashant Vats

More from Dr. Prashant Vats (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Relevant Provisions under IT Act, 2000 related to Investigation of Cyber Crimes