The Rights of the Deceased: Moral Rights Incidental to Copyright Law
- Vanshika Agrawal
- 2024-04-25
Contents hide
1 Offenses Under The It Act, 2000
2 Offenses Under The Information Technology Act,2000:
2.1 1) Tampering with Computer Source:(Section 65)
2.2 2) Hacking with Computer System:(Section 66)
2.3 3) Sending offensive messages by communication services:(Section 66A)
2.5 5) Identity theft:– (Section 66C)
2.6 6) Personation by using computer resource:(Section 66D)
2.7 7) Violation of privacy: (Section 66E)
2.8 8) Cyber terrorism: (Section 66F)
2.9 9) Publishing information that is obscene in electronic form: (Section 67)
2.10 10) Posting or sending any material having sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form:
2.12 12) Misinterpretation:(Section 71)
2.13 13) Breach of confidentiality and privacy: (Section 72)
2.14 14) Disclosure of information under a lawful contract: (Section 72A)
2.15 15) Publishing of Digital Signature Certificate false in some particulars:
2.16 16) Publication of fraudulent purpose:(Section 74)
2.17 17) Act committed outside India:(Section 75)
2.19 Steps Taken By Government:
This Act is call the Information Technology Act, 2000 and it applies to the entire India. This offenses act, 2000 also applies outside India where the offense committed by any person.
Bhim Sen Garg vs. the State Of Rajasthan: An FIR was fill for the offenses under Sections 465, 469, 471, 120B of the IPC and Section 65 of Information Technology Act 2000. The court was of the opinion that the counsel for the petitioner was not able to prove that there was any malicious intent from the side of the minister as mere allegation would not be enough.
Thus, the case against the petitioner cannot be quash. The court held that this case will not be considered as the rarest of rare cases under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution and the writ petition was dismissed [6].
A. Shankar vs. State Rep.: It was allege that the petitioner has secure access unauthorizedly to the protects system of the Legal Advisor and the petitioner face the charges of breach of confidentiality under Sections 66, 72, and Section 70 of IT Act 2000. The petition was dismissed by the Court as the charge sheet cannot be quashed on the ground of want of sanction in respect of Section 72 of Information Technology Act 2000 [7].
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India: Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 has struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not save under Article 19(2). Section 69A and the IT (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009 was constitutionally valid. Further, Section 79 is valid subject to Section 79(3)(b) were consider valid. All the writ petitions were disposed of [8].
K.R.Ravi Rathinam vs. The Director General of Police: A petition was fill under section 66B, 66E, 72, 72A, 76, and 77 of the IT Act 2000 and section 109, 379, 403, 420, 468, 470, 471, and 120(b) of IPC. The Court issued a notice to the Director-General of Police, IG, Actor Rajinikanth, Madurai city Police Commissioner, Union Secretary, Information and Broadcasting Ministry and Tamil Nadu Secretary of Information and Cinema. The producer of the movie Linga was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10 Crores to the Madras High Court, the movie lings were released and the petition was closed [9].
Ms. Suhani Surya Mohan vs. the Cyber Crime Police Station: FIR was fill against the petitioner by the Cyber Crime Police Station (Bengaluru) for the offenses committed under section 406, 465, 468, 471 of the IPC and sections 66(A) and 66(C) of the IT Act, 2008. But the case was beyond the jurisdictional limits of the police and the petition was dismissed [5].
Mr. Rajinikanth @ Raghu vs. State by Ajjampura Police Station: The petitioner has found accused under Sections 354(D), 509 of the IPC, and 66D of the IT Act, 2008. The petitioner was accuse of the offense of creating a fake Facebook account of the complainant’s daughter. But the complainant withdrew his complaint as it will harm the studies of his daughter as well as of the petitioner and both the parties made a settlement by signing a joint memo [3].
Muhammed Riyas vs. the State of Kerala: A petition was filed under section 67 and 77B of the IT Act. The petitioner was released on bail on executing a bond of Rs. 20,000 and not leave India without prior permission of the Magistrate[2]
(Section 67A)
(Section 67B)
Any person who has procured access to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document, or other material without the consent of the person concerned and discloses such electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document, or other material to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1 Lakh, or with both.
(Section 73)Any person who contravenes the provisions shall be punish with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with a fine which may extend to Rs. 1 Lakh, or with both.
Takhatsinh Ravsinh Solanki vs. Regional Passport Office: A FIR has fill against Takhatsinh Ravsinh Solanki under sections 504, 507, 499 of the IPC read with section 66 and 75 of the IT Act. The petitioner requested the respondent to renew the passport of his son who was residing in Toronto, Canada on the work permit. But his request was not process and an FIR against him by the respondent authority was lodge.
The Respondent Authority presented that they have renewed the passport of the petitioner’s son, and the petitioner filed an undertaking before the Court. And the Court allowed the petition partially and the respondents were directed to renew the passport for a period of 1 year [4].
(Section 76) the person in whose possession, power, or control of any such computer, computer system, or any other accessories relate thereto is find is not responsible for the contravention.
Then the court may in place 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 by them.
These are the offenses under the IT Act and because the technology has advanced so much. The offenses have been increasing as well and therefore, IT Act has also be amende from time to time to cover such offenses. For the same offenses, the offender can be charge under the provisions of the IT Act, 2000 and under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the same offense.
Drop your comment