Cyber Laws on Prevention of Cyber Crime

I. Introduction

The time period "cyber-crimes" is no longer described in any statute or rulebook. The phrase "cyber" is slang for something referring to to computers, records technology, net and digital reality. Therefore, it stands to motive that "cyber-crimes" are offences touching on to computers, statistics technology, net and digital reality.

One finds legal guidelines that penalise cyber-crimes in a quantity of statutes and even in rules framed by means of a number of regulators. The Information Technology Act, 2000 ("IT Act") and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") penalise a variety of cyber-crimes and unsurprisingly, there are many provisions in the IPC and the IT Act that overlap with each different.

II. Parallel Provisions in the IPC and IT Act

Many of the cyber-crimes penalized by means of the IPC and the IT Act have the identical components and even nomenclature. Here are a few examples:

• Hacking and Data Theft: Sections 43 and 66 of the IT Act penalize a variety of things to do ranging from hacking into a computer network, statistics theft, introducing and spreading viruses via laptop networks, unfavorable computer systems or pc networks or laptop programmes, disrupting any laptop or laptop machine or computer network, denying an accredited man or woman get entry to to a laptop or pc network, detrimental or destroying records living in a computer etc. The most punishment for the above offences is imprisonment of up to 3 years or a pleasant or Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees 5 lac) or both.

Section 378 of the IPC touching on to "theft" of movable property will practice to the theft of any data, on-line or otherwise, due to the fact that section 22 of the IPC states that the phrases "movable property" are meant to encompass corporeal property of each and every description, barring land and matters connected to the earth or completely mounted to something which is connected to the earth. The most punishment for theft beneath section 378 of the IPC is imprisonment of up to three years or a best or both.

Section 424 of the IPC states that "whoever dishonestly or fraudulently conceals or gets rid of any property of himself or any different person, or dishonestly or fraudulently assists in the concealment or elimination thereof, or dishonestly releases any demand or declare to which he is entitled, shall be punished with imprisonment of both description² for a time period which can also prolong to two (two) years, or with fine, or with both." This aforementioned part will additionally practice to records theft. The most punishment underneath area 424 is imprisonment of up to two (two) years or a pleasant or both.

Section 425 of the IPC offers with mischief and states that "whoever with intent to cause, or understanding that he is possibly to cause, wrongful loss or harm to the public or to any person, reasons the destruction of any property, or any such alternate in any property or in the state of affairs thereof as destroys or diminishes its fee or utility, or impacts it injuriously, commits mischief".

• Receipt of stolen property: Section 66B of the IT Act prescribes punishment for dishonestly receiving any stolen pc aid or conversation device. This part requires that the character receiving the stolen property ought to have accomplished so dishonestly or have to have motive to trust that it used to be stolen property. The punishment for this offence beneath Section 66B of the IT Act is imprisonment of up to three (three) years or a nice 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 nearly same to part 66B of the IT Act. The punishment below part 411 of the IPC is imprisonment of both description for a time period of up to three (three) years, or with fine, or with both.

• Identity theft and dishonest through personation: Section 66C of the IT Act prescribes punishment for identification theft and affords that every person who fraudulently or dishonestly makes use of the digital signature, password or any different special identification function of any different individual shall be punished with imprisonment of both description for a time period which might also prolong to three (three) years and shall additionally be accountable to quality which might also lengthen to Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac).

Section 66D of the IT Act prescribes punishment for 'cheating by way of personation by using the use of pc resource' and presents that any individual who via ability of any conversation gadget or pc useful resource cheats by using personation, shall be punished with imprisonment of both description for a time period which may additionally prolong to three (three) years and shall additionally be responsible to exceptional which may additionally prolong to Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac).

Section 419 of the IPC additionally prescribes punishment for 'cheating by using personation' and gives that any character who cheats by using personation shall be punished with imprisonment of both description for a time period which may also prolong to three years or with a great or with both.

The provisions of sections 463, 465 and 468 of the IPC dealing with forgery and "forgery for the reason of cheating", can also be relevant in a case of identification theft. Section 468 of the IPC prescribes punishment for forgery for the reason of dishonest and presents a punishment of imprisonment of both description for a time period which can also prolong to 7 years and additionally a fine. Forgery has been described in area 463 of the IPC to imply the making of a false report or section thereof with the intent to purpose injury or injury, to the public or to any person, or to help any declare or title, or to purpose any individual to section with property, or to enter into any categorical or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud might also be dedicated .

In this context, reference can also additionally be made to area 420 of the IPC that offers that any character who cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the character deceived to supply any property to any person, or to make, alter or smash the total or any section of a precious security, or something which is signed or sealed, and which is succesful of being transformed into a precious protection shall be punished with imprisonment of both description for a time period which might also prolong to 7 (seven) years, and shall additionally be accountable to fine.

The solely distinction between the punishments prescribed beneath sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act and area 419 of the IPC is that there is no most cap on the pleasant prescribed below the IPC. However, the punishment beneath part 468 is lots greater in that the imprisonment mat prolong to 7 (seven) years.

• Obscenity: Sections 67, 67A and 67B of the IT Act prescribe punishment for publishing or transmitting, in digital form: (i) obscene material; (ii) cloth containing sexually specific act, etc.; and (iii) cloth depicting teens in sexually express act, etc. respectively. The punishment prescribed for an offence beneath part sixty seven of the IT Act is, on the first conviction, imprisonment of both description for a time period which might also lengthen to three (three) years, to be accompanied via a nice which may additionally lengthen to Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees 5 lac), and in the tournament of a 2d or subsequent conviction, imprisonment of both description for a time period which might also prolong to 5 (five) years, to be accompanied by way of a exceptional which may also lengthen to Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees ten lac). The punishment prescribed for offences underneath sections 67A and 67B of the IT Act is on first conviction, imprisonment of both description for a time period which can also prolong to 5 (five) years, to be accompanied through a great which may also lengthen to Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees ten lac) and in the tournament of 2nd or subsequent conviction, imprisonment of both description for a time period which may additionally prolong to 7 (seven) years and additionally with quality which may additionally lengthen to Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees ten lac).

The provisions of sections 292 and 294 of the IPC would additionally be relevant for offences of the nature described underneath sections 67, 67A and 67B of the IT Act. Section 292 of the IPC affords that any man or woman who, inter alia, sells, distributes, publicly well-known shows or in any manner places into circulation or has in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, illustration or parent or any different obscene object in any way shall be punishable on a first conviction with imprisonment of both description for a time period which may additionally prolong to two years, and with high-quality which may additionally prolong to Rs. 2,000 (Rupees two thousand) and, in the tournament of a 2nd or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of both description for a time period which may additionally lengthen to 5 years, to be accompanied by means of a nice which may also prolong to Rs. 5,000 (Rupees 5 thousand).

Section 294 of the IPC gives that any character 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 close to any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of both description for a time period which may additionally prolong to three months, or with fine, or with each.

III. Cyber-crimes not provided for in the ipc

The following cyber-crimes penalised by means of the IT Act do now not have an equal in the IPC.

• Section 43(h) of the IT Act: Section 43(h) examine with area sixty six of the IT Act penalises an man or woman who fees the offerings availed of via a character to the account of some other character by way of tampering with or manipulating any computer, laptop system, or pc network. A individual who tampers with the laptop device of an electrical energy dealer and reasons his neighbour to pay for his electrical energy consumption would fall beneath the aforesaid area 43(h) of the IT Act for which there is no equal provision in the IPC.
• Section 65 of the IT Act: Section sixty five of the IT Act prescribes punishment for tampering with pc supply files and presents that any character who knowingly or deliberately conceals, destroys or alters or deliberately or knowingly reasons any other to conceal, destroy, or alter any laptop supply code used for a computer, laptop programme, pc gadget or pc network, when the laptop supply code is required to be stored or maintained with the aid of regulation for the time being in force, shall be punishable with imprisonment for up to three years or with a exceptional which can also prolong to Rs. 3,00,000 (Rupees lac) or with both.

Under area 409 of the IPC, criminal breach of have confidence must have been dedicated with the aid of anybody to whom the property was once entrusted.

• Violation of privacy: Section 66E of the IT Act prescribes punishment for violation of privacy and affords that any character who deliberately or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the picture of a non-public place of any individual except his or her consent, underneath occasions violating the privateness of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may also lengthen to three (three) years or with first-rate now 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, even though sections 292 and 509 of the IPC do cowl this offence partially.

Section 292 of the IPC has been mentioned above. Section 509 of the IPC offers that if any character intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or famous any object, intending that such phrase or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by way of such woman, or intrudes upon the privateness of such woman, such man or woman shall be punished with easy imprisonment for a time period which may additionally lengthen to 1 (one) year, or with fine, or with both. Unlike part 66E of the IT Act which applies to victims of each genders, part 509 of the IPC applies solely if the sufferer is a woman.

• Section 67C of the IT Act: Section 67C of the IT Act requires an 'intermediary' to maintain and preserve such data as can also be certain for such period and in such manner and layout as the Central Government can also prescribe. The part similarly gives that any middleman who deliberately or knowingly contravenes this requirement shall be punished with imprisonment for a time period which might also prolong to three (three) years and additionally be responsible to a fine. An 'intermediary' with appreciate to any unique digital record, has been described in the IT Act to imply any individual who on behalf of some other man or woman receives, shops or transmits that report or offers any provider with recognize to that report and consists of telecom carrier providers, community provider providers, web provider providers, web-hosting carrier providers, search engines, on-line fee sites, online-auction sites, online-market locations and cyber cafes. There is no corresponding provision in the IPC.
• Cyber terrorism: Section 66F of the IT Act prescribes punishment for cyber terrorism. Whoever, with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, protection or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the human beings or any area of the people, denies or motives the denial of get entry to to any individual licensed to get entry to a laptop resource, or tries to penetrate or get entry to a laptop aid except authorisation or exceeding approved access, or introduces or motives the introduction of any pc contaminant, and by means of capacity of such behavior motives or is possibly to purpose dying or accidents to folks or harm to or destruction of property or disrupts or understanding that it is possibly to motive injury or disruption of materials or offerings vital to the existence of the neighborhood or adversely have an effect on imperative statistics infrastructure, is responsible of 'cyber terrorism'. Whoever knowingly or deliberately penetrates or accesses a pc useful resource except authorisation or exceeding permitted access, and by way of capability of such habits obtains get entry to to information, statistics or pc database that is restrained for motives for the safety of the State or overseas relations, or any confined information, information or pc database, with motives to agree with that such information, statistics or pc database so acquired may additionally be used to reason or possibly to purpose damage to the hobbies of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the safety of the State, pleasant members of the family with overseas States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, or to the gain of any overseas nation, team of men and women or otherwise, is additionally responsible of 'cyber terrorism'.

Whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism shall be punishable with imprisonment which may additionally lengthen to imprisonment for life.

There is no provision in the IPC that mirrors Section 66F of the IT Act, even though Section 121 of the IPC (waging, or trying to wage war, or abetting waging of war, in opposition to the Government of India) does cowl this offence in part .

IV. Whether compoundable, cognizable and bailable?

Section 77A of the IT Act presents that, problem to sure exceptions, all offences below the IT Act for which the punishment is imprisonment for a time period of three (three) years or less, are compoundable. The provisions of sections 265B and 265C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") shall follow with appreciate to such compounding.

Section 77B of the IT Act affords that however whatever contained in the CrPC, all offences punishable with imprisonment of three (three) years and above below the IT Act shall be cognizable and all offences punishable with imprisonment of three (three) years or much less shall be bailable.

Most of the cyber-crimes included underneath the IT Act are punishable with imprisonment of three (three) years or less. The cyber-crimes which are punishable with imprisonment of extra than three (three) years are:

1. publishing or transmitting obscene cloth in digital shape below part sixty seven of the IT Act;

2. publishing or transmitting of cloth containing sexually specific act, etc., in digital structure underneath part 67A of the IT Act;

3. publishing or transmitting of cloth depicting teens in sexually specific act, etc., in digital shape beneath part 67B of the IT Act; and

4. cyber terrorism underneath part 66F of the IT Act.

All of the cyber-crimes beneath the IPC are bailable different than offences underneath area 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing transport of property), part 468 (forgery for the reason of cheating), part 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property), part 378 (theft) and part 409 (criminal breach of have faith by using public servant, or by means of banker, service provider or agent), which are non-bailable.

Offences beneath sections 463 and 465 (forgery), sections 425 and 426 (mischief), part 468 (forgery for the reason of cheating), part 469 (forgery for the motive of harming reputation) and area 292 (sale, etc., of obscene books, etc.) of the IPC are non-compoundable offences whilst offences underneath sections 378 and 379 (theft), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing shipping of property), sections 425 and 426 (mischief when the solely loss or harm precipitated is loss or harm to a personal person), area 509 (word, gesture or act meant to insult the modesty of a woman), area 411 (Dishonestly receiving stolen property) and area 419 (Punishment for dishonest with the aid of personation) of the IPC are compoundable offences. Of these, offences below sections 420 and 509 can be compounded solely with the permission of the court. Most of the cyber crimes beneath the IPC are cognizable different than the offences beneath sections 425 and 426 (mischief) and sections 463 and 465 (forgery) which are non-cognizable.

The overlap between the provisions of the IPC and the IT Act might also now and again lead to an anomalous scenario whereby positive offences are bailable underneath the IPC and now not beneath the IT Act and vice versa and sure offences are compoundable below the IPC and no longer below the IT Act and vice versa. For instance, in case of hacking and statistics theft, offences underneath sections 43 and 66 of the IT Act that are bailable and compoundable whilst offences underneath part 378 of the IPC are non-bailable and offences underneath part 425 of the IPC are non-compoundable. Further, in case of the offence of receipt of stolen property, the offence below part 66B of the IT Act is bailable whilst the offence underneath area 411 of the IPC is non-bailable. Similarly, in case of the offence of identification theft and dishonest by using personation, the offences beneath sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act are compoundable and bailable whilst the offences beneath sections 463, 465 and 468 of the IPC are non-compoundable and the offences underneath sections 468 and 420 of the IPC are non-bailable. Finally, in case of obscenity, the offences underneath sections 67, 67A and 67B of the IT Act are non-bailable whilst the offences below area 292 and 294 of the IPC are bailable. This difficulty has been dealt with via the Bombay High Court in the case of Gagan Harsh Sharma v. The State of Maharashtra³ whereby offences underneath sections 408 and 420 of the IPC that are non-bailable and can't be compounded different than with the permission of the courtroom have been in fighting with offences underneath sections 43, sixty-five and sixty-six of the IT Act that are bailable and compoundable.

V. Conflict between the ipc and the it act: case law

In the case of Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government of NCT of Delhi⁴, the struggle between provisions of the IPC and the IT Act got here to the fore. In this case, on November 27, 2004, an obscene video had been listed for sale on baazee.com ("Bazee"). The list was once deliberately made below the class 'Books and Magazines' and sub-category 'ebooks' in order to keep away from its detection via the filters established through Baazee. A few copies have been offered earlier than the checklist used to be deactivated. Later Delhi police's crime department charge-sheeted Avinash Bajaj, Bazee's managing director and Sharat Digumarti, Bazee's manager. The agency Bazee was once now not arraigned as an accused and this helped Avinash Bajaj get off the hook considering the fact that it was once held that, vicarious legal responsibility ought to no longer be mounted on Avinash Bajaj underneath both area 292 of the IPC or area sixty seven of the IT Act when Avinash's business enterprise Bazee itself used to be now not an accused. Later adjustments beneath part sixty seven of the IT Act and part 294 of IPC towards Sharat Digumarti had been additionally dropped, however the expenses beneath area 292 of the IPC had been retained. The Supreme Court then regarded if, after the fees beneath part sixty seven of the IT Act used to be dropped, a cost below area 292 of the IPC could be sustained. The Supreme Court quashed the court cases towards Sarat Digumarti and dominated that if an offence includes an digital record, the IT Act by myself would follow considering the fact that such was once the legislative intent. It is a settled precept of interpretation that unique legal guidelines would be successful over frequent legal guidelines and latter legal guidelines would be successful over prior legislation. Further, area eighty one of the IT Act states that the provisions of the IT Act shall have impact however some thing inconsistent therewith contained in any different law for the time being in force.

In the case of Gagan Harsh Sharma v. The State of Maharashtra⁵, sure folks have been accused of theft of information and software program from their corporation and charged underneath sections 408 and 420 of the IPC and additionally below sections 43, sixty five and sixty six of the IT Act. All of these sections, different than part 408 of the IPC, have been mentioned above. Section 408 of the IPC offers with crook breach of have confidence with the aid of clerk or servant and states that "whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such ability with property, or with any dominion over property, commits crook breach of believe in admire of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of both description for a time period which may also lengthen to seven years, and shall additionally be dependable to fine".

Offences below sections 408 and 420 of the IPC are non-bailable and can't be compounded different than with the permission of the court. Offences underneath sections 43, sixty five and sixty six of the IT Act are bailable and compoundable. Therefore, the petitioners pleaded that the costs towards them underneath the IPC be dropped and the costs towards them below the IT Act be investigated and pursued. The Bombay High Court upheld the contentions of the petitioners and dominated that the prices towards them below the IPC be dropped .

VI. A suitable home for cyber offences

We presently have a scenario the place a range of offences are penalised through each the IPC and the IT Act, even even though the elements of each offences are the same. There are delicate variations in punishments beneath these statutes, particularly in elements like whether or not the offence is bailable or compoundable or cognizable. An offence such as obscenity may additionally take area via distinctive sorts of media, each on-line or offline. However, it may want to end result in unfairness if two (two) distinctive statutes practice to the identical offence on the groundwork of the media used.

The sum and substance of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Sharat Babu Digumarti case is that no person can also be charged beneath the IPC for an offence springing up out of sure acts or omissions if the IT Act ought to additionally be utilized to the identical acts or omissions. Though we are in full settlement with the Supreme Court's ruling, it is our rivalry that all cyber offences ought to be housed in the IPC and no longer in the IT Act. The "cyber" thing of an offence is no longer ample motive for differential remedy of sub-categories of the offence. Even even though the supreme court's ruling in the Sharat Babu Digumarti case has ensured that no character might also be charged below the IPC for an offence bobbing up out of positive acts or omissions if the IT Act may want to additionally be utilized to the identical acts or omissions, it is a reality that offences such as theft and obscenity will be punished otherwise if they contain a 'cyber' element. Currently, an person who distributes a tough reproduction e book containing obscene substances will be punished beneath the IPC while an character who distributes obscene substances thru the net will be punished underneath the IT Act, even though the underlying offence is the same. A character who steals a vehicle will be punished beneath the IPC while an person who indulges in theft of on line facts will be punished beneath the IT Act.

Theft is theft, regardless of whether or not the stolen property is digital or physical. Obscenity transmitted via the net have to be dealt with at par with obscenity which is transmitted offline.

VII. IPC's treatment of stalking

The legislature's therapy of the offence of "stalking", finished thru the insertion of new area 354D in the IPC thru the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013⁶, is a case in point. Section 354D penalizes the offence of "stalking" whether or not it has a cyber aspect or not. If a man follows a lady and contacts, or tries to contact, such lady to foster non-public interplay over and over regardless of a clear indication of disinterest by means of such woman, it quantities to stalking.

VIII. Amendments to the ipc to cowl cyber-crimes

The Indian legislature has from time to time, made a quantity of amendments to the IPC, to specially cowl cyber-crimes. Some of the essential amendments are as follows:

1. a new area 29A was once created to outline "electronic record" by way of linking it with the definition given in the IT Act⁷;

2. a new sub-section (3) was once inserted in part four of the IPC (relating to the extension of the IPC to greater territorial offences) that states that the provisions of the IPC shall be relevant to any individual in any region "without and past India", committing an offence concentrated on a laptop aid placed in India⁸;

3. in sections 118 and 119 of the IPC the phrases "voluntarily conceals via any act or omission or through the use of encryption or any different statistics hiding tool, the existence of a design" have been inserted earlier than the phrases "to commit such offence or makes any illustration which he is aware of to be false respecting such design"⁹;

4. in part 464 of the IPC (which penalizes the making of a false document), the phrase "digital signature" was once replaced with the phrase "electronic signature" in all places. The area used to be additionally amended to consist of the making of false digital documents and affixing digital signatures beneath its ambit and the phrase "affixing digital signature" was once given the equal which means as it has below the IT Act9;

5. "electronic record" used to be covered inside the ambit of sections 164, 172, 173, 175, 192, 204, 463, 466, 468, 469, 470, 471, 474 and 476 of the IPC that previously solely furnished for "documents", "books", "paper", "writing" or "records", as the case may also be;

6. in area 466 of the IPC (which offers with forgery of courtroom data or of public registers), the time period "register" was once described to encompass any list, statistics or file of any entries maintained in an "electronic form", as described in part 2(1) (r) of the IT Act¹⁰; and

7. a new area 354D used to be inserted in the IPC that introduces the offence of cyber stalking, which has been mentioned above.

When the IT Act used to be enacted, its center of attention was once on inserting in region technological know-how regulation fundamentals like digital signatures, presenting prison consciousness for digital archives and the like. Its preamble noted that its goal used to be to "provide prison focus for transactions carried out by means of capability of digital information interchange and different capability of digital communication, typically referred to as 'electronic commerce', which contain the use of options to paper-based techniques of verbal exchange and storage of information, to facilitate digital submitting of archives with the Government groups and similarly to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and for things linked therewith or incidental thereto”¹¹.

Even even though the IT Act penalised cyber-crimes with a huge brush via sections 43, sixty-six and 67, it used to be solely in 2008 that the IT Act was once amended¹² and provisions have been made for particular cyber-crimes such as sending offensive messages through conversation servers, dishonestly receiving a stolen pc aid or verbal exchange device, identification theft, violation of privacy, cyber terrorism etc. via sections 66A to 66F and sections 67A to 67C. These amendments stick out like an unwieldy appendage.

IX. Conclusion

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ("Constitution") states that the State shall now not deny to any individual equality earlier than the regulation or the equal safety of the legal guidelines inside the territory of India. It is no longer our rivalry that the cutting-edge country of affairs consequences in a per se violation of Article 14 of the Constitution even even though it has created a sad country of affairs. The legislature does have the freedom to make precise legal guidelines for particular things or situations. However, the docking of cyber-crimes in the IT Act does no longer show up to have been properly notion through. Therefore, it is submitted that all cyber offences in the IT Act ought to be repealed and the IPC be suitably modified (to cowl all of the cyber-crimes, consisting of these presently blanketed underneath the IT Act) at the earliest viable comfort of the legislature.

*****

Footnotes

1. Author is a student at KIIT School of Law, Bhubneshwar, India.

2. Indian Penal Code 1860,Section 424,Dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property ↩

3. Gagan Harsh Sharma v. The State of Maharashtra2019 CriLJ 1398 ↩

4. Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Government of NCT of DelhiAIR 2017 SC150 ↩

5. Gagan Harsh Sharma v. The State of Maharashtra2019 CriLJ 1398 ↩

6. Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, (Act No. 13 of 2013) with effect from February 2013 ↩

7. Act 21, 2000, Section 91 Schedule I, (with effect from October 17, 2000) ↩

8. Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act No. 10 of 2009) (with effect from October 27, 2009) ↩

9. Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act No. 10 of 2009) (with effect from October 27, 2009) ↩

10. Act 21, 2000, Section 91 Schedule I, (with effect from October 17, 2000) ↩

11. Andrew Terrett, Lawyers Introduction to the Interne, Masons http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/it&law/it-terr1htm ↩

12. Vide the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act No. 10 of 2009) which came into effect from October 27, 2009 ↩