cyber crime
amit
(Querist) 01 March 2011
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir/Mam,
I want to read the whole original judgement in the case of State of Tamil Nade V Suhas Katti.Please help!
Regards,
Amit
Ajay Bansal
(Expert) 01 March 2011
See website of S.C and Madras H.C.
Parveen Kr. Aggarwal
(Expert) 01 March 2011
The case related to posting of obscene, defamatory and annoying message about a divorcee woman in the yahoo message group. E-Mails were also forwarded to the victim for information by the accused through a false e-mail account opened by him in the name of the victim. The posting of the message resulted in annoying phone calls to the lady in the belief that she was soliciting.
Based on a complaint made by the victim in February 2004, the Police traced the accused to Mumbai and arrested him within the next few days. The accused was a known family friend of the victim and was reportedly interested in marrying her. She however married another person. This marriage later ended in divorce and the accused started contacting her once again. On her reluctance to marry him, the accused took up the harassment through the Internet.
On 24.03.2004, Charge-sheet was filed under section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and sections 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 before The Addl. CMM, Egmore by citing 18 witnesses and 34 documents and material objects. The same was taken on file in C.C. NO.4680/2004. On the prosecution side 12 witnesses were examined and entire documents were Exhibited.
The Defence argued that the offending mails would have been given either by ex-husband of the complainant or the complainant herself to implicate the accused as accused alleged to have turned down the request of the complainant to marry her. Further the Defence counsel argued that some of the documentary evidence was not admissible under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.
However, the court relied upon the expert witnesses and other evidence produced before it, including the witnesses of the Cyber Cafe owners and came to the conclusion that the crime was conclusively proved. The learned ACMM delivered the judgement on 05.11.2004.
It was held:
“ The accused is found guilty of offences under section 469, 509 IPC and 67 of IT Act
2000 and the accused is convicted and is sentenced for the offence to undergo RI for 2 years under 469 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and for the offence u/s 509 IPC
sentenced to undergo 1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and for the offence u/s 67 of IT Act 2000 to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.4000/- All sentences to run concurrently.”
This is considered as the first case convicted under section 67 of Information Technology Act 2000 in India.
Guest
(Expert) 01 March 2011
PROPER REPLY GIVEN BY EXPERTS.GOOD LUCK.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 01 March 2011
This is also an information to many of us experts.
amit
(Querist) 01 March 2011
Respected Teachers/friends,
Thanks for the reply.Will certainly look at the madras h.c.site.however if anyone knows the citation please do let me know.
Regards,
Amit.
amit
(Querist) 01 March 2011
If someone hacks my e-mail and chat account and chats on my name mentioning that i have being having an extra-maritial affair for the last two years what charges can i put against him,my marriage as a result of his/her activity is on the verge of breakdown? What if he used a proxy server?
If the person is a diplomat working in an embassy is he entitled to diplomatic protection? Can the state file a case of hacking & defamation against him in sessions court?
The only evidence available is my computer. Will the court accept this as evidence? And if the court dismisses the evidence and the case, then can i appeal to the Delhi High Court?
Any help will be of great help.
Thanking You,
Amit.
