gy (C

Legal Helpline: Information Technolo Yber Law)

Cl-IAP'f
Compoundable, Cognizable and b
~t
aIJab
offenc
fSections 77. 77B

pla in the co mp ound ing offen ces and penalties;

Q. 14 Ex
detail. Or
at are cognizable offences un der the IT Act, 2000? Explain~
Q. Wh
detail. (Jan 2022) (15Marks) Or
offences.
Q. Explain cognizable and bailable
Se cti on 77: Pe na lti es or co nfi sc ati on no t to interfere With
I.
er pu ni sh m en ts (Inser ted by the information
oth
08)
Technology (Am~ndment) Act, 20
aw ar de d, the pe na lty impo
sed or
No co mp en sa tio n
t mu st pr ev en t the award of
confiscation ma de un de r this ac
of an y oth er penalty or
compensation or im po sit ion
fo r the time be ing in force.
pu nis hm en t un de r an y oth er la w
if the ac t is su ch th at the ac cu sed can be held liable
Therefore,
s ac t as we ll un de r In dia n pe na l co de or an y other law
un de r thi
nis hm en t un de r thi s ac t wi ll no t ba r the punishment
the n pu
y oth er la w in md ia.
un de r the Indian penal code or an
of Offences (Inserted by
II. Section 77-A: Co mp ou nd ing
inf or ma tio n Te ch no log y (A me nd me nt ) Ac t, 2008)
the
pe r Se cti on 77 -A of the I. T. Act, an y Co ur t of co mp ete nt
As
ences, oth er tha n off en ce s for
jurisdiction ma y co mp ou nd off
ich the pu nis hm en t for life or im pr iso nm en t fo r a ter m
wh
ov ide d un de r the Ac t.
exceeding thr ee ye ars ha s be en pr
No offence shall be co mp ou nd ed
if-

76
 7
Legal He lp lin e: In fo rm at io
n Te ch no lo gy (C yb er Law)
The ac cu se d is , by re as on
of hi s pr ev io us co nv ic tio
• ei th er en ha nc ed pu ni sh m n, is
fable to en t or to th e pu ni sh m en
t of
i ifferent ki nd ; O R
d Offence af fe ct s th e so ci. o .
• ec on om ic co nd iti on s of th e
country; O R
• Offence ha s be en co m m it . .
te d ag ai ns t a ch ild be lo w
age of 18 ye ar s; O R th e
• O ff en ce ha s be en co m m it
te d ag ai ns t a w om an .
The pe rs on al le ge d of an
of fe nc e un de r th is A ct m
application fo r co m po un ay file an
di ng in th e C ou rt . Th e of
then be pe nd in g fo r tr ia fence w ill
l an d th e pr ov is io ns of Se
and 265-C of C r. P .C. sh al l ctions 265-B
ap pl y.
Cyber L aw s ar e th e so le sa
vi or to co m ba t cyber-crim
th ro ug h st ri ng en t la w s e. It is on ly
th at un br ea ka bl e se cu rit y
pr ov id ed to th e na ti on 's co ul d be
in fo rm at io n. Th e I.T. Act
came up as a sp ec ia l ac t to of In di a
ta ck le th e pr ob le m of C yb
The A ct w as sh ar pe ne d by er Crime.
th e A m en dm en t A ct of 2008
.
C om m on C yb er -c ri m e sc
enarios an d Applicability
Se ct io ns of Legal
Le t us lo ok in to so m e co
m m on cyber~crime scenar
ca n at tr ac t pr os ec ut io n ios w hi ch
as pe r th e penalties an d
pr es cr ib ed in IT A ct 2000 offences

• H ar as sm en t vi a fa ke
pu bl ic pr of ile on so ci
ne tw or ki ng si te al
.
A fa ke pr o£i·1e of a pe rs on is cr ea te d on a social ne tw or . .
. th ki ng sit e
w it h e corr ec t ad dr es s, residential informatio .
n or contact
__.,,. .__ bu t he /s he is la be lle
5 d as 'p ro st itu te ' or a pe rs on f 'l
r'. Th is le ad s to ha ra ss m en o oose
t of the victim.
O nl in e H at e C om m un ity

77
 Legal Helpline: Information Technology (Cyber Law)

• hate community is created

Online . inciting
. a religious grouPto
act or pasS ObJ'ectionable remarks agamst a country, nationaJ
figures etc
• Email Account Hacking
If victim's email account is hacked and obscene emails are sent
to people in victim's address book.
• Credit Card Fraud
Unsuspecting victims would use infected computers to make
online transactions.
• Web Defacement
The homepage of a website is replaced with a pornographic or
defamatory page. Government sites generally face the wrath of
hackers on symbolic days.

• Cyber Terrorism
Many terrorists are use virtual (G Drive, F1P sites) and
physical storage media(USB's, hard drives) for hiding
information and records of their illicit business.
• Online sale of illegal Articles
Where, sale of narcotics, drugs weapons and wild life is
facilitated by the Internet.
• Cyber Pornography
Among the largest businesses on Internet Porn h
• • many countries,
• but child pornogr
' h . y may
ograp
II.I I
e illegal m
ap y IS.

ompounding of Offences (Inserted by

Technology (Amendment) .Act, )
2008
le with imprisonment of three Years and
....,._·able and the offence Punishable With
years shall be bailable.
 Law)
Leg al He lpli ne: Inf orm atio n Tec hno log y (Cyber

In Ajendraprasad vs. State:

rges we re ma de
The co urt ref use d to gra nt ba il wh ere cha
re sui t wa s filed
un de r IPC an d sec tio n 67 of the IT Ac t 2000. He
an d un de r sec. 5
un de r sec. 292, 294, 295, 120B, an d 420 of IPC
& 9 of the im mo rta l tra ffic act an d un de r
67 of IT Act alleging:
racy for
i. Th at acc use d ha tch ed a criminal conspi
c (CDs)
pre pa rat ion an d cir cul ati on of compact Dis
dh us of
wh ich ex po sed the mi sde eds of the Sa
,
Sw am ina ray an sec t in Sw am ina ray an temple
.. Th at sad hu s ha ve de fam ed the religion an d exploited
11.
mitted by
wo me n by vid eo gra ph ing sexual acts com
religious
sad hu s on the pre tex t of performing
.
cer em on ies , used
... Th at the vid eo CD s ha ve be en pre par ed by the acc
111. medabad
pe rso ns an d the y ha ve circulated the same Ah
an d oth er pla ces for the public. . tered by
: persons
Ba sed on the c~ mp lai nt, of !:: sa ::; s; e:
DC B Po lic e sta. tio n, Ah me ~ t· gation wa s started.
an d the 1nves1gt d·to the applicant.
na me d the re in, .
He re, no ant ici pat ory bai l wa s gra n e
 . e· Information Technology (Cyber L
Legal He1pI1n • aw)

CHAP'fEn_ • I
Investigation and procedure of search ~l~:
seizure [Sections 78 &t ll.~ ,
. 80]
· ation and procedure of search and
Q.15 Inves tzg A .
seizure. 7 J.V.lf\..,%
~A "Dv,.
A

pr11 2014
20
2017 Or , Is,
Q. Explain the process of investigation and the procedure of search
and seizers in IT Act, 2000. (Jan 2021) (15Marks)
Ans. Search and Seizure is a procedure used in many civil
law and common law legal systems by which police or other
authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has
been committed, commence a search of a person's property
and confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to
the crime.
Some countries have certain provisions in
their constitutions that provide the public with the right to be
free from "unreasonable searches and seizures". This right is
generally based on the premise that everyone is entitled to a
reasonable right to privacy.
Though specific interpretation may vary, this right can often
require law enforcement to obtain a search warrant or consent
of the owner before engaging in any form of search and
seizure. In cases where evidence is seized in a search that
evidence might be rejected by court procedures, such a; with
a motion to suppress the evidence under the I .
exc us1onary
rue.
1
Section-78 and Section-SO deals with Invest· .
. ~aboo ~d
procedure of search and seizure.
"Investigation" has been defined under s. 2 (h)
Criminal Procedure Code. It includes all the p of the
roceedings
under "the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ,, c
1or the
80
 . . Inf orm ati on Te ch no log y (C
Legal He lpl ine . yb er La w)
.
f ev id en ce co nd uc te d by a Po lic e of fic er or by an y
nection ° th a M ag ist ra te) w ho is au th or
co (o the r an iz ed by a
erson Th e of fic er -in ch ar ge of a Po lic
e St at io n ca n sta rt
~agistrat~- ·th
· at1on ei er on in fo rm at io n or ot he rw ise (se cti on 15 7
st1
i11ve g Th e in ve sti ga tio n co ns
ist s of th e fo llo wi ng ste ps
cr.P·_~.)-frorn th e re gi str at io n of th
e ca se :-
sta~b gRe gi str ati on
of th e ca se as re po rte d
1 by th e
• co mp lai na nt u/ s 15 4 Cr .P .C .,
Pr oc ee di ng to th e sp ot an d ob
ii. se rv in g th e sc en e of
cri me ,
iii. As ce rta in me nt of all th e fa
cts an d cir cu ms tan ce s
re lat in g to th e ca se re po rte d,
iv. Di sc ov er y an d ar re st of th e su sp
ec te d of fe nd er (s) ,
v. Co lle cti on of ev id en ce in th e fo
rm of or al sta tem en ts
of wi tn es se s (se cti on s 16 1/1 62
Cr .P C. ), in th e fo rm of
do cu m en ts an d se izu re of m ate
ria l ob jec ts, ar tic les an d
mo va bl e pr op er tie s co nc er ne d
. in th e re po rte d cr im e.
Vl. Co nd uc t of se ar ch es of pl
ac es an d se izu re of
pr op er tie s, etc .
..
Vi l. Fo rw ar di ng ex hi bi ts an d ge tti
ng re po rts or op rm on
fro m th e sc ien tif ic ex pe rts (se cti
... on 29 3 Cr .P .C )
Vl ll. Fo rm at io n of th e op in io n as
to wh eth er on th e
m ate ria ls co lle cte d, th er e is a ca
se to pl ac e th e ac cu se d
be fo re a m ag ist ra te fo r tri al an
d if so , tak in g ne ce ss ar y
.lX. ste ps fo r fil ing a ch ar ge sh ee t, an d
Su bm iss io n of a Fi na l Re po rt to
th e co ur t (se cti on 17 3
Cr .P .C .) in th e fo rm of a Ch ar ge
Sh ee t alo ng wi th a lis t
of do cu m en ts an d a M em o of
Ev ide nc e ag ain st th e
ac cu se d pe rso n( s).

Re lev an t Ca se s - ·
• In Ad ri Dh ar an Da s v. St
ate of W.B. , it ha s be en
. d h
op in e t at: "a rre st is a pa rt of the pr oc es s of
81
 Legal He1Pl1·ne·• Information Technology (Cyber La
w)
====7
.
1nvest·1gation intended to secure several
. . purposes 1i._
accuse d may hav e to be questioned 1n • n~
. d et ail regarct·
various facets of mo . 1ng
tive, preparation, co
aftermath of the ~ m 1ssion and
crime and connec
persons, if any, in th tion of other
e crime."
• In Niranjan Sing .
h v. State of U.P. , 1t
down that investig has been laid
ation is not an in
before the Court an quiry or trial
d that is why the
not contemplate any Legislature did
irregularity in inves
sufficient importance tigation as of
to vitiate or otherw
infirmity in the inqu ise form any
iry or trial.
Further Investigatio
n
The mere undertakin
g of a further inves
investigating officer tigation either by th
on his own or upon e
superior police offi the directions of the
cer or pursuant to
Magistrate concerne a direction by the
d to whom the repo
not mean that the re rt is forwarded does
port submitted und
abandoned or rejected er Section 173 (2) is
. It is only that eith
agency or the court co er the investigating
ncerned is not comp
the material collecte letely satisfied with
d by the investigatin
the opinion that poss g agency and is of
ibly some more mater
collected in order to ial is required to be
sustain the allegation
\ of the offence indica s of the commission
I ted in the report. (V
Agarwal v. S tate of Gujarat and ipul Shital Pra sad
another, (2013) 1 SC
C
19 )
7
Procedure for invest
igation.-
If, from informatio
n received or other
charge of a police wise an ff ' .
• station has reason to' o 1cer m
•
comm1ss1on of an off sus
en ce w h1'c h h •
e 1s
1nvesh•gate, he sh a11 f th •em
• n 156 to •
sectio poweredp ec t fue
the same to a Magis or with send a re u n de r
trate empowered to
such offence upon a po . take cognizap o rt o f
lice report and shall pr
oceed in pneree
son
of
82 ____.__..-... '
 lpline: Informa tion Technol ogy (Cyber Law)
Lega1 H e
te one of his subord inate officers not being
hall d ep U
or 5 ch rank as the State Gover nment may, by genera l or
stl
:'7
be10
ec1a1 or ,
der to procee d, to the spot, to investi gate the facts
sp . instanc es of the case, and, if necessa ry, to take
d c1rcu
an s for the discov ery and arrest of the offende r:
tneasure
Provided that-
a) when inform ation as to the commi ssion of any such
~£fence is given agains t any person by name and the case is
not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station
need not procee d in person or depute a subord inate officer to
make an investi gation on the spot;
(b) if it appear s to the officer in charge of a police station that
there is no sufficie nt ground for enterin g on an investi gation,
he shall not investi gate the case.
In each of the cases mentio ned in clauses (a) and (b) of the
proviso to sub-sec tion (1 ), the officer in charge of the police
station ·shall state in his report his reason s for not fully
complying with the require ments of that sub-sec tion, and, in
the case mentio ned in clause (b) of the said proviso , the
officer shall also forthw ith notify to the inform ant, if any, in
such manner as may be prescri bed by the State Govern ment,
~e fact that he will not investi gate the case or cause it to be
mvestigated.

Search b . .
I. Y po1ice officer .-
Whene ver an officer in charge of a police station or a
police officer making an investi gation has reason able
ground s for believi ng that anythin g necessa ry for the
Purpos es of an investi gation into any offence which he is
¾~o· . .
. rised to investi gate may be found 1n any place
Wi~in
ch th 1· • •
e 1m1ts of the police station o f w h"1ch h e 1s
• m•
c arge, or to which he is attache d, and that st1ch thing
annot in his opinio n be otherw ise obtaine d withou t
83
 --- --1 11 11
ber Law)
Legal Helpline: Information Technology (Cy
ing in Writin
un du e d~lay, su ch officer ma y, aft er record
such writin g
the gr ou nd s of hi s be lie f an d
so far as po ssi ble , the thi ng for wh ich
sp ec ify ing in
search is to !
, for such thing
ma de , sea rch , or ca us e se arc h to be ma de
n.
in an y pla ce wi thi n the lim its of su ch statio
ection (1), shall, if
2. A po lic e officer pr oc ee din g un de r sub-s
pra cti ca ble , co nd uc t the se arc h in person.
he is un ab le to co nd uc t the sea rch in pe rson, and there
3. If
search present
is no oth er pe rso n co mp ete nt to ma ke the
ng his reasons
at the time, he ma y, aft er rec ord ing in wr iti
na te to him to
fo r so do ing , req uir e an y officer su bo rdi
ch subordinate
ma ke the search, an d he sh all de liv er to su
place to be
officer an or de r in wr iti ng , specifying the
ng for which
se arc he d, an d so far as possible, the thi
h is to be ma de ; an d su ch su bo rd ina te officer may
se arc
ce.
the reu po n sea rch for su ch thi ng in su ch pla
Th e pr ov isi on s of thi s Co de as to sea rch -w arr an ts and the
4.
d in section 1~
ge ne ral pr ov isi on s as to searches co nta ine
sh all , so far as ma y be, ap ply to a search
ma de under this

section.
 . . form atio n Tec hno logy (Cy ber Law )
l J--Ielphne. 1n
Lega

CH AP TE R- 13
Int erm ed iar y no t lia ble in ce rta in ca ses
[S ec tio ns 2(w ), 79 ]
. an inte rme dia ry? Ca n he be hel d liab le for 3rd
W}l o 1s
Q.16 info rma tion ?
(15 ) De c 201 9
party. the role of the Inte rne t Ser vice Pro vide r? Dis cus s
What is his liab ility
under the I.T. Act wit ~ the _help of ~ases. ( ·1
15) Ap n 201 8
Intermediary not liable in cert ain cases 7 AP RIL 201 7
g_ Who is Inte rme diar y? Can he be mad e liable for thir
d par ty's
objectionable info rma tion ? 15 DE CE MB ER 201 6
Q. (b) Intermediary not liable in cert ain cases.
8 AP RIL 201 5
Q. (a) Inte rme diar y not liable in cert ain cases.
(8) AP RIL -20 14
Q. "A (Canada) has sen t obs cen e mat eria l to
B (CH D) "Ex pla in
whether inte rme diar y is liable for tran smi ttin g
suc h mat eria l.
(15) Apr il 201 3
Q. Write short note s on
a) Liability and mea nin g of inte rme dia ry (7) DE C.2 012
An inte rme dia ry wa s def ine d as any per son wh
o on beh alf of
ano ther per son sto res or tran smi ts tha t me ssa ge
or pro vid es
any serv ice wit h res pec t to tha t me ssa ge.
The Info rma tion Tec hno log y Am end me nt Act
200 8 has
clarified the def init ion of inte rme dia ry by spe cifi
call y inc lud ing
~e ~el eco m serv ice pro vid ers , inte rne t serv ice pro
vid ers, web -
F0stmg serv ice pro vid ers in the def init ion of inte
rme dia ries .
urther sea rch eng ine s, onl ine -pa ym ent site s, onl
ine auc tion
s and cyb er cafe s are also inch .1de d in

Am end me nt Act 200 8

nar io in Ind ia was wo rse for
·es wer e liab le for thei r use rs
85
 logy (Cyber Law)
Legal Helpline: Information Techno
of Bazee.com chief Av·
co nt en t. This led to th e ar re st
• n w1·th the sa1e of th e in• fa m ou s DPS N ma •dsh Ba·
•m co nn ec tio 01 a

p CD on the we bsite. Post the Bazee.com fiasc0

cli
been amended.
Information Technology Laws have

Amendment Act 2008

According to section 79 of the IT
t se rv ice pr ov id er sh all no t be liable un de r any la
An In ter ne tion, da
th e tim e be in g in fo rce fo r an y th ird pa rty informa
fo r
tio n lin k m ad e av ailab le by hi m except when the
or co mm un ica
me di ar y ha s co ns pi re d or ab ett ed in th e commission of the
in ter
ac t or up on re ce iv in g ac tua l kn owledge or on being
un law fu l
tif ied by th e ap pr op ria te go ve rn m en t or its agency that any
no
ati on , da ta' or co mm un ica tio n link residing in or
inform
resource controlled by the
connected to a co m pu te r
me di ar y is be in g us ed to co mm it th e unlawful act, the
in ter
y fai ls to ex pe di tio us ly re mo ve or disable access to
in ter me di ar
th ou t vitiating the evidence in
th at ma ter ial on th at resource wi
any manner.
r Am en de d se cti on 79 of the IT Act, the
Hence un de
no w be en expressly changed to
requirement of kn ow led ge ha s
t of ac tua l kn ow led ge . Th i~ ha s be en combined with a
receip
d tak es do wn du ty . Th er e is a tim e lim it o f 36 hours
notice an
to su ch a req ue st. If an in ter me di ar y refuses to do
to re sp on d
ur t as a co-accused. Un de r the
so, it can be dr ag ge d to th e co
r provisions is available only
Am en dm en t Act the safe ha rb ou
er where the function of the
to an Internet service pr ov id
ng access to a communication
intermediary is limited to givi
n ma de available by the third
network over which informatio
rarily stored or wh er e the
party is transmitted or tempo
y do es no t ini tia te the tra ns mi ssion, does no t select
intermediar
er of the tra ns mi ssi on an d do es no t select or m od ify
the receiv
th e· e transmission.
 elpline: Information Technology (Cyber Law)
Lega1H
f the IT (Amendment) Act 2008 thus deals with
79
5ecti00. :f intermediaries. It is purported to be a safe
i¢1l\lJllty rovision modelled on EU Directive 2000/31. The Safe
}larbour pprovisions found in the IT Act are similar to that
u rbour . .
pa d in the US Laws which essentially say that
the
foutl diaries who merely provide a forum weren't liable for
intertn e
at users did. The on1y cond"1hon • bemg • that they
respond
wh ptly to a notice telling them about a violation. If the
protn .
ebsite took that file off then they were in the clear.
~e Delhi High Court in a case against myspace.com held that
safe harbour provisions did not apply in the case of mysp_ace
because it added advertisements to clips of songs thus
modifying them - something intermediaries are not supposed
to do if they want to be covered by the safe harbour rules.
Further the Copyright Act in its current form did not really
allow for the provision of sending a notice for taking down the
clip. The only way for Myspace to avoid being liable was to do
its due diligence before the copyright violation. The Indian
Copyright law does not allow for the kind of process that
protects internet intermediaries. The Indian law is however
moving towards importing the safe harbour provisions in the
IT (Amendment)Act into the Indian Copyright Law.
Amendments to the Copyright Act are pending in the
Parliament.
Intermediaries are though given immunity under section 79,
they could still be held liable under section 72A for disclosure
of personal information of any person where such disclosures
are without consent and with intent to cause wrongful loss or
wrongful gain or in breach of a lawful contract.
Proviso to section 81 of the IT (Amendment) Act states that
nothing contained in the Act shall restrain any person from
exercising any right conferred under the Copyright Act 1957
and the Patents Act 1970. This provision has created a lot of
87
 Legal Helpline: Information Technology
(Cyber Law)
confusion as to the extent of liability pr
ovided under section
79. .
The Information Technology (A me
nd me nt) Ac t 2008 makes a
genuine effort to provide immunity to the
intei:mediaries but
ne ed s to plu g in som e ga ps so as to
en ab le the mtermediaries
to operate wi tho ut fear an d inhibitio
ns.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION V. YO
GESH PAPAT, DELHI
HIGH COURT18.
Facts of the case:- This case concern
s the inf rin ge me nt of
copyright in software an d notably the
int erp ret ati on of Sections
51 an d 55 of the Copyright Ac
t 1957. Th e Microsoft
Corporation, the registered pro pri
eto r of the trademark
MICROSOFT, requested a pe rm an
en t inj un cti on restraining
the defendant, its directors an d agen
ts fro m co py ing , selling,
offering for sale, distributing or
iss uin g to the public
counterfeit or unlicensed versions
of Microsoft's software
pro gra m in an y ma nn er tha t amou
nts to inf rin ge me nt of
Microsoft's copyright in the comp
uter pro gra ms , related
ma nu als an d Microsoft's registered tra
demarks. Microsoft also
req ue ste d tha t the defendant be pre
ve nte d fro m sel lin g an d
distributing an y product to which the
tra de ma rk MICROSOFT
or an y variants of this trademark
have be en ap pli ed . The
de fen da nt did no t appear before the
oceea·mgs
court so the pr
too k place ex parte. The court even '
tua
defendant, wh o wa s downloadin . . lly rul ed aga ms .
t
th
e
. g Mi cro sof t sof tw a th
re
ha rd drives of computers that it then sold, wi tho ut a .on to e
. 11ce
Permission to do so from .dMicrosof .
t. Decision Th nce or
ap pro ac he d each piece of evi ence in e co urt
tum and, ba sed on the
ass umPtl·on tha t 100 computers were .
sold each ye ar an d
ev ide nc e of the software's popularity on the
,. h:l d tha t Microsoft ha d
ff d a total profit loss of Rsl.98 m1lhon, plu
su ere d t of the decree until the s interest at 9'¾
from the a e date of paYrnent. 'TTL o
88 i .ne
 Law)
Legal He lpl ine : Inf orm ati on Tec hno log y (Cyber
ie in the High
court, qu oti ng an ob ser va tio n by Justice Ladd
Corporation v
Court of En gla nd an d W ale s in Microsoft
s "constituted
Electrowide Lt d, he ld tha t the de fen da nt' s action
in the class of
a general thr ea t to inf rin ge the co py rig ht
presided in this
software". Justice Pr ed ee p Na nd raj og , wh o
defendant has
case, sta ted tha t: "It sta nd s est ab lis he d tha t the
cit copies of the
infringed the pla int iff 's co py rig ht by ma kin g illi
ying whatever
operating sy ste ms so ftw are by op en ly cop
op era tin g sy ste m is cu rre ntl y saleable."