MUMBAI:
A woman has been held guilty of identity theft for unauthorized access of email accounts of her estranged husband and father-in-law, against whom she had filed a case of dowry. Anita Naik had taken printouts of chats and emails to produce them as evidence. Her husband had shared his and his father's passwords with her when relations were cordial.
Rajesh Aggarwal, adjudicating officer, cyber appellate tribunal, said in his order, "Since the woman gave the evidence only the police and the court in the dowry case lodged by her against her husband and in-laws, and did not make it widely public, I do not hold her liable for damages. Under 66-c, there is a provision of fine for identity theft, for dishonest use of password of any other persons. I order that she pay a token fine of Rs 100 to the state treasury."
Naik argued that there is a "bond of trust" between husband and wife and hence she had the "right" to access the emails. But the tribunal noted, "As the emails have been accessed after this bond of trust was broken, and a dowry case was lodged, and husband arrested, I find no merit in it. Section 43 of the Information Technology Act clearly applies, regarding unauthorized access." The adjudicating officer held her guilty for unauthorized access and download/forwards/printing of emails and chat sessions with others. The order stated, "She has committed identity theft by using the passwords belonging to others dishonestly, and violating the privacy of not only the complainants but also of others with whom these chat sessions were conducted."
The order stated, "She has violated the privacy of not only the complainants, but also of their friends and relatives, who had by no stretch of imagination authorized her to look into these private chat sessions."
The officer said, "Even in family or company premises, if someone has forgotten to log out, and another person comes across open emails, the expectation is that new person will immediately log out and not snoop on other email or chat sessions." (Names of people in the case have been changed)
