Police ignorance bliss for cyber criminals

Poor knowledge of cyber laws may facilitate Anoushka Shankar’s blackmailer to walk out of prison, say legal experts, reports Sumit Saxena.

Poor knowledge of cyber laws may facilitate Anoushka Shankar’s blackmailer to walk out of prison, say legal experts.

HT Image

Cyber law expert and Supreme Court advocate Pavan Duggal said: “Despite an offence involving infringement of electronic data, police have not invoked the requisite Section 66 of the Information and Technology (IT) Act.”

Delving further into the issue Duggal said it is high time for our investigating agencies to prepare rock solid cases against people involved in cyber crimes.

In Shankar’s case, the police have registered an FIR under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code — it deals with offence of extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt. The maximum punishment for such a crime, if proven guilty, is 10 years’ imprisonment.

“A mere complaint under Section 386 does not fortify the case. The police should have first registered the case under Section 66 of the IT Act,” said Duggal.

When asked about how the trial would differ in the absence of cyber law section, Duggal said: “For any crime involving electronic data hacking, sections of cyber law should be imposed. In this case, the accused could say that the password was shared with him. How could it then amount to a crime?”

Further asked about the multiple jurisdictions in the case he said: “We need to get in touch with the service provider located outside India, therefore, it requires sections of the IT Act.

Speaking on electronic data protection in any Internet hacking case, he added: “The police should collate the electronic evidence and preserve it as per the requirement of the IT Act.”

Duggal said the electronic evidence collected has to legally admissible in court. “Otherwise the case become fragile during the trial,” he added.