By Arryan Mohanty

Published on: October 23, 2023 at 15:37 IST

In light of the contemporary era of technology, it has become effortless to store our data on a computing device. A coin, as is commonly acknowledged, possesses two distinct sides. Correspondingly, the progression of technology exhibits both favorable and detrimental facets. We have been preserving our data on numerous online platforms, such as passwords, names, addresses, and credit and debit card particulars. Consequently, the malefactor has recently embarked on stealing information from the computer. Identity theft stands as a substantial predicament confronted by many individuals.

Identity theft, often known as ID theft, is a worldwide phenomenon. With the technological revolution, globalisation, and digital adaptability prevalent across many industries, technology has swiftly influenced people’s mindsets. The value of information technology has progressively increased, with both beneficial and dire consequences. Identity theft has been a significant worry in recent years due to India’s rapid development and revolution in information technology.

Identity theft, a crime that is increasing in frequency, poses a challenge for regulatory authorities. Within the confines of this article, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the various manifestations of identity theft. Furthermore, we explore the plausibility of identity theft occurrences and the methods employed by malevolent individuals to acquire personal information and emphasize the necessity for individuals to remain vigilant.

A considerable number of individuals remain oblivious to the fact that identity theft constitutes a criminal offense. Our analysis thoroughly examines the advantages and disadvantages of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the regulatory measures implemented to address identity theft under the abovementioned legislations.

Meaning of Identity Theft

The term ‘ID Theft’ or “identity theft” pertains to illicit activities in which an individual wrongfully acquires and employs the personal information of another individual. These illegal activities may involve misappropriating an individual’s full name, date of birth, unique identification number, bank account number, credit or debit card details, telephone number, and other pertinent information as part of any fraudulent scheme or deception.

From a technical standpoint, this may be done to obtain financial advantages by procuring a range of products or services. In addition, criminals may exploit this information to procure counterfeit identity cards, establish unauthorised bank accounts, obtain false birth certificates, and obtain other critical documents.

Even the unique patterns on a person’s fingertips can be a weapon for stealing someone’s identity. Any fraudulent biometric device could compromise a significant amount of personal information. Should an individual’s fingerprints fall into the wrong hands, the perpetrators could exploit the victim’s name that has been employed. Furthermore, most victims remain oblivious to the data breach until it is too late to rectify it. Restoring one’s identity after such thefts is an extensive and time-consuming process that may span several months or even years, with a meagre success rate.

Modes of identity thefts

There exist multiple techniques for perpetrating data theft and acquiring personal data via technological apparatus. The following enumerated methods are as follows:

Hacking

Hackers are unethical individuals who breach any other computer system’s information. Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000¹ defines unauthorised access to computer resources as “whoever with the purpose or intention of causing any loss, damage, or destroying, deleting, or altering any information that resides in a public or any person’s computer.  Hacking occurs when someone reduces its utility, values it, or harms it in any way.”

Hacking breaches the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.  Malware, such as viruses or worms, can divert information from an alternate computer system through decryption and deliver it to a malicious individual. This individual may utilise or distribute the acquired information to accomplices to perpetrate fraudulent activities.

Phishing

It employs bogus email addresses or messages with virus-infected websites. These infected websites encourage users to provide personal information such as login and account details.

Email/SMS spoofing

A falsified electronic mail is an instance where the source is misrepresented to appear as though it originated from a different location than its actual point of origin. Within the realm of SMS spoofing, the offender appropriates someone else’s identity by utilizing their phone number and proceeds to transmit SMS messages via the internet. Consequently, the recipient of these messages perceives them as originating from the individual’s mobile number, whose identity was assumed.

ATM skimming/carding

 Cybercriminals employ unauthorised ATM debit and credit cards to withdraw funds from the bank accounts of individuals.

Vishing

The cyber-criminal initiates contact with the targeted individual by telephone and assumes the role of a financial institution agent or customer service representative, thereby deceiving the person into divulging confidential details about their identification.

Pharming

It constitutes a form of online deception wherein cybercriminals employ malicious code and counterfeit webpages to implant detrimental code onto a computer server. Lacking the user’s awareness or consent, said programs automatically reroute the user to deceitful websites. These websites resemble their authentic counterparts, eluding consumers’ detection of deceptive actions as they enter their personal and financial data.

Malware

Malware is intrusive software designed to inflict harm or obliterate computer systems and their existing data to acquire unauthorized network entry. This classification encompasses malicious software variations, including viruses, ransomware, and spyware. Viruses are commonly propagated through email as either a hyperlink or a file, necessitating the user to click on the hyperlink or open the file to activate the virus.

Unsecured websites

Cyber attackers exploit vulnerable websites to acquire personal and financial data from individuals. These individuals are enticed to access these websites and disclose their information, which cybercriminals or hackers consequently intercept. Websites labeled with the domain name “HTTPS” are perceived as secure, whereas websites labeled with the domain name “HTTP” are deemed insecure.

Warning signs

Many individuals who become targets of identity theft are not aware of the warning signs that signal the occurrence of such criminal activity. These signs encompass:

• a notification or advisory from the bank or service provider.
• an unauthorised record of card transactions.
• the receipt of One one-time password (OTP) from unfamiliar websites in a haphazard manner.
• verification phone calls from the bank or service provider.
• the occurrence of periodic or frequent withdrawals of modest sums from the bank account.

History of Identity Theft

Identity theft dates back to ancient times when people would adopt fictitious identities to commit fraud or other crimes. However, as it is now acknowledged, the current identity theft epidemic has its roots in the rise of consumerism and the proliferation of personal information as a commodity. Identity theft was once considered a bodily crime.

The early identity thieves murdered their victims Criminals simply retrieved the victim’s name, Social Security Number, and other personal information after the remains were safely disposed of. The motivation was typically not monetary but rather the purchase of a new identity.

Each scenario is unique, and generalisation is impossible. Perhaps someone owed Al Capone and his colleagues and had to flee to California to start over using false but legitimate paperwork. It’s an extreme method to restart, but given the historical culture of the time, it may be conceivable. The attacker virtually became the victim’s physical person.

The telephone was the first technical gadget to commit the crime of identity theft in the early 1960s and 1970s. They implanted a thirst for monetary gain in the victims’ heads and extracted personal information such as their addresses, social security numbers, bank account numbers, etc. The victim’s predicted desire to obtain the rewards results in a lifetime of pain and disaster. The anticipated inclination of the recipient to acquire the benefits culminates in enduring anguish and catastrophe.

Later on, once individuals became aware that their identities had been stolen due to such phone calls, thieves began searching for identifying information in the trash, such as credit cards or bank statements tossed in the trash. When the victims became aware of this, they began employing paper shredders. Identity theft became more common and superficial to commit with the advancement of computer technology and the widespread use of the internet.

Identity theft expanded substantially in the late 1990s and early 2000s as thieves discovered new ways to acquire personal information through internet scams, computer hacking, and stealing mail and other physical documents.

Governments and law enforcement agencies have initiated measures to address the escalating issue of identity theft. To cite an instance, the Identity Theft Clearinghouse was established by the Federal Trade Commission in 1997 to aggregate complaints and statistics about identity theft.

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) was sanctioned by the United States Congress in 2003, introducing fresh prerequisites for businesses to safeguard consumer data and endowing consumers with increased rights to dispute inaccuracies on their credit reports.

Identity theft poses a grave menace as criminals devise novel and more intricate approaches to acquire personal information and perpetrate fraudulent activities. Despite the concerted efforts of government, law enforcement, and commercial entities to avert identity theft, it continues to persist as a substantial predicament, with millions of individuals worldwide succumbing as victims to this transgression annually.

Identity Theft in the Modern Era

In the contemporary era of computerisation, globalisation, and the internet, our computational devices and electronic apparatuses amass a substantial amount of data on each individual and securely store it within concealed files deeply embedded within their hard drives.

These files, which include cache, browser history, and other temporary internet files, retain sensitive data such as login credentials, personal identifiers, physical addresses, and even credit card particulars.

Using such delicate information, an unauthorized individual possessing malevolent intentions could gain entry to the data and disseminate it among others or implant pernicious software onto a computer or electronic device to extract confidential and sensitive information.

The concern regarding identity theft is marvellous in our current digital era. This criminal activity is experiencing a rapid growth rate, resulting in financial harm to individuals, prominent establishments, retail stores, and the overall economy.

Moreover, the complexity of this issue is further exacerbated by the emergence of new forms of electronic identity theft. It is important to note that the impact of such fraudulent activities is not solely limited to financial repercussions; it can also lead to substantial damage to one’s reputation, considerable time spent rectifying misinformation, and exclusion from specific services due to the inappropriate use of stolen identities.

Acknowledging that electronic networks are pivotal in facilitating identity theft is imperative. Criminals exploit these networks to gather online information for offline actions, serving as a foundation for online robbery or other detrimental consequences.

Identity theft has emerged as the dominant criminal activity of the current era, representing the most recent and egregious manifestation in a lengthy series of nefarious white-collar offenses. As the day progresses, an increasing number of data frauds, the most severe of which threaten the safety of all individuals.

Furthermore, developing economies, including India, have witnessed a rapid rise in data fraud and identity theft occurrences. Although the Indian government is reluctant to disclose precise figures of incidents of identity theft in recent times, one may infer from regular contributions in newspaper columns the perilous and recurrent nature of these identity thefts within our daily existence.

The pandemic effect of identity theft in India

According to the Norton Cyber Safety Insights Report for 2021, a survey was conducted by the cyber security company among a total of 10,000 individuals residing in 10 different countries to obtain the findings. This included the participation of 1000 adults from India. As per the study, it was revealed that within the preceding 12 months, 36% of Indian adults reported instances of unauthorized access to their accounts or devices. These findings were based on the responses from the 1000 participants from the country.

Identity theft impacted a significant proportion of the Indian population, precisely two out of every five individuals. The data indicates that within just one year, 14% of these victims fell prey to identity theft. This suggests that nearly 27 million Indian individuals encountered identity theft within the preceding 12 months. The surveys further indicate that approximately 60% of the adult population, including the elderly, harbor concerns and apprehensions regarding the potential theft of their identities.

Almost two-thirds of individuals believe that they possess sufficient protection against any form of identity theft; nevertheless, a significant proportion lacks the knowledge and understanding required to respond in the event of such an occurrence effectively. Most individuals unaware of the prevailing reality of identity theft express a desire for additional information and insights to equip themselves adequately.

The rise in incidents of identity theft within India, which occurs with a frequency that is both alarming and noteworthy, is primarily attributed to the adoption of remote working practices necessitated by the ongoing epidemic.

According to surveys conducted, it has been revealed that nearly seven out of every ten Indian individuals have experienced the adverse consequences of cybercriminals and hackers as a direct result of embracing the characteristic of remote working that was compelled upon them due to the prevailing circumstances.

Laws Governing Identity Theft in India

Identity theft is not considered an independent offense in India. However, it is encompassed within the Information Technology Act 2000 purview and addressed by several clauses of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Due to its amalgamation of theft and fraud components, the fundamental provisions of the IPC, namely fraud, forgery, and impersonation-based cheating, are often invoked in conjunction with the IT Act.

Despite identity theft being a category of criminal activity involving user data, it falls outside the purview of Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).² The rationale behind this exclusion is rooted in the fact that the said section exclusively addresses movable property or tangible property that can be detached from the ground.³

Although electricity has been encompassed within the definition of theft, the Supreme Court, in the case of Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab,⁴ concluded that this inclusion was necessitated by Section 39 of the Electricity Act,⁵ and there existed no intent to expand the scope of Section 378 of the IPC. Consequently, despite the reality that identity information manifests itself as binary data signals comprising zeros and ones governed by streams of electronic waves akin to electricity, it is impermissible to construe Section 378 as encompassing data or identity theft.

Provisions of Identity Theft under the Information Technology Act, 2000

The objective behind the enactment of the Information Technology Act 2000 was to confer legal validity upon exchanges carried out via electronic data interchange and other modes of electronic communication, commonly known as electronic commerce. These exchanges utilise non-traditional communication and information preservation, expediting official records’ electronic submission to governmental entities.

Section 43 outlines the prescribed sanctions for inflicting harm on a computer, computer system, or other electronic device. If an individual, without the explicit consent of the proprietor or any other individual in a position of authority over said computer, computer system, or computer network, enters or gains entry into it and subsequently proceeds to download, extract, or duplicate data, introduce computer contamination, compromise the functionality of the computer, disrupt its operations, restrict authorized individuals from accessing the computer, computer system, or computer network, through any means, commit theft, concealment, destruction, or alteration of data or computer source code, to cause harm, they shall be held responsible for providing compensation to the affected party.⁶

Consequently, this provision of the Act encompasses all conceivable infractions relating to unauthorized entry into a computer system to furnish restitution in damages.

Section 43A encompasses the provision of financial compensation to address the failure to safeguard data adequately. It stipulates that if an organization, as a legal entity, demonstrates negligence in the execution and upkeep of reasonable security measures and protocols, thereby resulting in unjustifiable detriment or undue advantage to any individual, the organisation, as mentioned above, shall bear the responsibility of reimbursing the affected party through compensatory damages.⁷

Section 66 of the Act deals with computer offences and the corresponding penalties. It stipulates that if an individual engages in any of the actions listed in Section 43 with dishonest or fraudulent intent, they will be subject to imprisonment for a maximum period of three years, a fine of up to five hundred thousand rupees, or both.

Section 66B, on the other hand, asserts that anyone who knowingly receives or possesses stolen computer resources or communication devices, with the awareness or reasonable belief that they are stolen, shall be subject to imprisonment for a maximum period of three years, a fine of up to one hundred thousand rupees, or both.⁸

Section 66 C explicitly delineates the prescribed sanction for the offense of Identity Theft. It specifies that an individual who deliberately or deceitfully employs another person’s electronic signature, password, or any other distinct identification attribute shall be subject to incarceration for up to three years, in addition to a monetary penalty of up to one lakh rupees.⁹

Section 66D stipulates, “Any individual who engages in fraudulent activities by impersonating another person through the use of a communication device or computer resource shall be subject to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years and shall also be accountable for a fine not exceeding one lakh rupees.”¹⁰

The IT Act 2000 aimed at providing respite from any transgressions about computers or transgressions carried out through the procurement of electronic information. As per the National Crime Records Bureau, the percentage of cyber crimes stands at a staggering 65%, disregarding that most such offenses remain unreported due to an absence of comprehension of existing redresses and solutions.

Provisions of Identity Theft under the IPC

The majority of offenses are addressed by the Indian Penal Code. In contrast, the Information Technology Act has been revised to encompass crimes involving computers and electronic data.

Section 464 pertains to the offense of falsifying documentation. The documentation above could have been authorised through signing, sealing, executing, creating, or transmitting any electronic record or attaching any electronic signature to cause it to be perceived as such by the authority while being aware that it was not originated, signed, sealed, executed, or affixed with an electronic signature. This section also encompasses individuals who dishonestly or fraudulently alter electronic documents without legal authorization. Furthermore, it safeguards the rights of deceased individuals from misappropriating electronic data. Additionally, it encompasses individuals who fraudulently induce another person to sign, seal, change, execute, or affix electronic signatures on a document of which the person is unaware of its contents.¹¹

Section 465 specifies the penalty forgery as imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.¹²

Section 468 states, “Whoever commits fraud with the intent that the falsified document or electronic record will be used for defrauding will be punished with imprisonment of either kind for a time that may extend to seven years, as well as a fine.”¹³

Section 469 deals with forgery to cause reputational injury and indicates that the punishment is imprisonment of either kind for a time that may extend to three years, as well as a fine.¹⁴

Section 471 pertains to counterfeit documents that are utilized as legitimate with the awareness of their falsification, and it is subject to the same penalties as if the individual had fabricated the document.¹⁵

Section 474¹⁶ addresses the possession of a document specified in Section 466¹⁷ or 467,¹⁸ with the knowledge of its forgery and the intention to utilize it as authentic. It is punishable by imprisonment for up to seven years and a monetary fine.

Identity theft is addressed within the framework of the Information Technology Act and the Indian Penal Code. While identity theft is specifically mentioned solely in Section 66 C of the IT Act, it can be deemed to occur under the various provisions outlined in both Acts. With the emergence of new avenues in the electronic marketplace, the existing regulations are finding it increasingly challenging to keep pace with the rapid advancements in information technology. Thus, these regulations must encompass digital currencies and other electronic advancements within their purview.

Lacunae in the Indian Laws on Identity Theft & Its Implementation

The Information Technology Act, 2000, with amendments made in 2008, has made significant progress in protecting an individual’s data and personal information against exploitation. Nevertheless, certain aspects of the legislation and regulations on identity theft necessitate clarification or alteration.

In the first instance, Section 66 C of the amended Act safeguards a “unique identification feature,” the precise definition of which is absent from the Act itself. The Information Technology Rules of 2011 define “sensitive personal information” as information intermediaries must secure. However, unless interpreted by a judge or granted explicitly by statute, it would be overly speculative to regard a unique identification feature as indicative of sensitive personal information.

Second, while the IT Act applies to anyone implicated in identity theft involving any computer resource headquartered in India, the jurisdictional questions remain unresolved. When the accused is a non-Indian citizen, the country of his citizenship has different laws related to identity theft, and the country of his citizenship has not signed an extradition treaty with India, arrest of such accused is impossible.

Third, the Act is insufficient in terms of compensation to the victim. The compensation paid under Section 43 of the IT Act 2000 has a maximum limit of one crore, and if a company causes the loss of data, the cap is five crores. A victim may incur a more significant loss than this amount, which is ignored. Furthermore, under Section 47¹⁹, the Adjudicating Officer must consider only tangible/quantifiable damage caused to the victim when awarding compensation in circumstances where claims are less than 5 Crore rupees.

Depending on the subsequent act to which the unique identity information is applied, the victim may endure significant emotional distress and hardship due to the crime. It takes significant time and resources to restore one’s reputation or rectify one’s credit record, which should be considered when determining compensation.

Fourth, the fine for identity theft under Section 66 C of the Act is limited to one lakh rupees. Identity theft is a broad category under which crimes of varying severity can be committed. An identity thief can cause a single person to lose property worth thousands or a big community to lose millions of rupees. In both circumstances, a symbolic fine of up to one lakh rupees would be levied. Furthermore, the other sections of the Indian Penal Code with which Section 66 C may be combined do not specify an acceptable limit (upper or lower) or how it should be calculated, leaving it to the court’s discretion.

Finally, laws are intended to fulfil two functions: prevention and deterrent. It is not feasible to anticipate and thereby avoid identity theft. In the instance of this crime, when a certain degree of premeditation or forethought is often spent before its commission, a deterrent effect can be established.

This can be accomplished by applying harsher punishment and/or fines. Identity theft is now a cognizable, bailable, and compoundable offence under the IT Act. Section 77A²⁰ makes violations committed under Section 66 C compoundable. Furthermore, a three-year prison sentence is insufficient to act as a deterrent.

Making bail as a provision could potentially provide an opportunity for the accused to obstruct the ongoing investigation conducted by the cyber cell into the crime, thereby interfering with the preservation of digital evidence and traces associated with the accused’s criminal activities.

Problems in Implementing the Laws

Despite the steady escalation of cybercrime year by year, the conviction rate in India remains distressingly low. As per the 2013 statistics, a mere 7 out of 3682 complaints resulted in the conviction of 1600 detained individuals. This inadequacy may stem from the flawed implementation of existing regulations or the absence of essential infrastructure required to enforce laws.

The lack of police officers equipped with the necessary expertise to tackle cybercriminal activities is evident. The continuous advancements in technology have enabled cyber thieves to employ novel encryption techniques, rendering decryption arduous due to the limited resources available to the authorities. Consequently, this hampers the entire process, sometimes culminating in the release of the accused owing to insufficient evidence.

Certain judgments in the United States have granted authorities the jurisdiction to solicit cybercriminals to decipher digital evidence in exchange for imprisonment. However, this practice has yet to be utilised extensively. Furthermore, India currently possesses eight cyber laboratories, which are overwhelmed due to the substantial volume of cybercrime cases.

Lastly, the failure of authorities to register cybercrime complaints may potentially be a contributing factor to the limited occurrence of convictions or reporting. This matter warrants further investigation. The government can rectify these vulnerabilities through an increase in the number of available positions for trained police officers and an allocation of additional funding towards the implementation of cutting-edge technology that can assist in effectively combatting cybercriminal activities.

Impact of Identity Theft

Almost two-thirds of individuals believe that they possess sufficient protection against any form of identity theft; nevertheless, a significant proportion lacks the knowledge and understanding required to respond in the event of such an occurrence effectively. Most individuals unaware of the prevailing reality of identity theft express a desire for additional information and insights to equip themselves adequately.

The rise in incidents of identity theft within India, which occurs with a frequency that is both alarming and noteworthy, is primarily attributed to the adoption of remote working practices necessitated by the ongoing epidemic.

According to surveys conducted, it has been revealed that nearly seven out of every ten Indian individuals have experienced the adverse consequences of cybercriminals and hackers as a direct result of embracing the characteristic of remote working that was compelled upon them due to the prevailing circumstances.

According to a poll conducted by the Identity Theft Resource Centre 2016, most identity theft victims, amounting to 74%, experienced heightened stress levels. Furthermore, 69% of the victims expressed apprehensions regarding their financial safety, while 60% displayed anxiety symptoms. Additionally, 42% of the respondents indicated concerns for the financial security of their family members.

The ramifications of identity theft extend beyond psychological distress, as it can also lead to sleep disturbances and hinder one’s ability to carry out daily tasks. Moreover, one may face physical harm if a criminal act is committed using the victim’s identity, as this immediately exposes the victim to the risk of arrest and legal consequences until their records are cleared.

Prevention from Identity Theft

To safeguard oneself against the escalating occurrences of identity theft, the subsequent preventive measures are recommended:

• Using a robust password or a secretive security Personal Identification Number (PIN) is obligatory.
• Passwords must be altered regularly.
• Steering clear of dubious or suspicious websites and connections.
• Abstaining from disclosing personal information to any other individual.
• Ensuring the security of documents and vital data.
• Implementing an authorized security firewall to prevent hacking attempts on electronic devices.
• Restricting the exposure of credit cards and other personal information cards.

Suppose an individual falls prey to identity theft. In that case, it is imperative to promptly notify the local law enforcement agency, lodging a complaint at the Cyber Cell Police Station in the respective jurisdiction and informing the concerned institution. For instance, if a person’s banking details have been compromised and an unauthorized transaction has taken place without his consent, He should communicate with the banking authorities of his authorized account-holding bank.

Conclusion

Identity theft is an emerging and potent malevolence that impacts our society. Its inherent characteristic is infiltrating an individual’s financial resources and identity, subsequently assuming control. This phenomenon no longer elicits surprise, as the government and its authorities have taken the responsibility of curtailing it.

We must confront this imperceptible transgression as we progress towards a future characterized by an ominous online realm and a commodification of personal information. Following the inevitabilities of mortality and taxation, identity theft has become a third inescapable certainty. We are compelled to fortify ourselves as challenging targets, equipped with the knowledge of how to respond should we fall victim to this crime.

From a legal perspective, Indian laws are lacking in safeguarding against identity theft, which refers to the unauthorized access and use of personal or organizational data. This highlights the urgent need for significant enhancements in the legislation, rules, and regulations governing identity theft.

The absence of explicit regulations has led to a proliferation of deceptive offenses, which have seen a staggering rise over the past two decades. To effectively address this issue, it is imperative to establish a robust system with a well-defined hierarchy of jurisdiction that ensures the proper enforcement of existing laws and impartial monitoring of the situation.

In addition, it is crucial to mitigate power overlaps and engage individuals with a strong sense of ethical conduct. Moreover, the government must actively promote consumer awareness regarding securing personal information and adopting safe online practices. Furthermore, it is essential to educate individuals about their rights and the available avenues for redress in identity theft cases.

Furthermore, individuals should actively monitor their credit reports and personal data to minimize the impact and detect any instances of identity theft at an early stage. Additionally, they should seek clarification on the necessity and security measures associated with using their personal data.

References

• identity-theft-report
• identity-theft-statistics
•  laws-for-protection-against-identity-theft/
• what-is-identity-theft-and-how-you-can-protect-your-personal-data-
• Over 27 million Indian adults experienced identity theft in the past 12 months
• Identity Theft the Biggest Cyber Security Threat in India, 2.7 Crore Affected in 2020: Norton
• Cyber Crime Case Studies Ahmedabad :: Cyber Fraud In India
• Identity Theft in India: A Security Concern
• Identity theft- a critical and comparative analysis of various laws in India

Endnotes

1. The Information Technology Act, 2000, s.66, No.21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India)

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, s.378, No.45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)

3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, s.22, No.45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)

4. AIR 1965 SC 666

5. The Punjab Electricity Act, 1939, s.39

6. The Information Technology Act, 2000, s.43, No.21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India)

7. The Information Technology Act, 2000, s.43A, No.21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India)

8. The Information Technology Act, 2000, s.66B, No.21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India)

9. The Information Technology Act, 2000, s.66C, No.21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India)

10. The Information Technology Act, 2000, s.66D, No.21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India)

11. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, s.464, No.45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)

12. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, s.465, No.45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)

13. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, s.468, No.45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)

14. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, s.469, No.45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)

15. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, s.471, No.45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)

16. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, s.474, No.45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)

17. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, s.466, No.45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)

18. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, s.467, No.45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)

19. The Information Technology Act, 2000, s.47, No.21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India)

20. The Information Technology Act, 2000, s.77A, No.21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India)