Popular Cyber Cases, Cyber Cases Investigation Reports, Cyber Cases Lawyer

Cyber Law Consulting >> Knowledge Center >> Cyber Cases

Case I. Cubby, Inc v. CompuServe, Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y.1991)

Where CompuServe is an online company providing access to over 150 special interest forums comprised of electronic bulletin boards, interactive online conferences, and topical databases. A newsletter called Rumorville was made available via the bulletin board. The plaintiff sued CompuServe for libel after allegedly defamatory statements were disseminated through the newsletter against it. Cubby argued that the court should consider CompuServe to be a "publisher" of the allegedly defamatory statements, and thus hold it liable for the statement.

The court held that CompuServe had "no more editorial control over such a publication than does a public library, bookstore, or newsstand". The court instead found CompuServe to be more akin to a "distributor" rather than a "publisher". Thus, because it was undisputed that CompuServe did not have knowledge of or reason to know of the allegedly defamatory statements made in the publication, especially given the large number of publications it carries and the speed with which publications are uploaded into its computer banks and made available to CompuServe subscribers, the court held that CompuServe could not be held liable to Cubby for the defamatory statements. The court noted that to impose on CompuServe the duty to examine every publication it carries for defamatory statements would "impose an undue burden on the free flow of information".

Case II. State Bank of India vs. Rizvi Exports Ltd, II (2003) BC 96

(DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD )

State Bank of India (SBI) (Appellants) had filed a case to recover money from some persons who had taken various loans from it Respondent: Rizvi Exports Ltd. As part of the evidence, SBI submitted printouts of statement of accounts maintained in SBI's computer systems.

The relevant certificates as mandated by the Bankers Books of Evidence Act (as amended by Information Technology Act) had not been attached to these printouts.

The Court held that these documents were not admissible as evidence Decided On: 01.10.2002

Case III. Groff v. America Online, Inc., 1998 WL 307001 (1998)

The plaintiff, an individual in Rhode Island who subscribed to America Online, sued the company in Rhode Island state court, alleging violations of state consumer protection legislation. The process of becoming a member of AOL includes a step in which the applicant must assent to AOL's terms of service by clicking an "I Agree" button. The terms of service "contains a forum-selection clause which expressly provides that virginia law and Virginia courts are the appropriate law and forum for the litigation between members and AOL." AOL moved to dismiss this suit from the Rhode Osland Superior Court for improper venue on the ground that a forum selection clause in the parties' contract mandated that the suit be brought in virginia, where AOL's base of operations was located. The court agreed, and dismissed the suit.

The court held that the plaintiff assented to AOL' s terms of service online by the click of an "I agree" button. The terms of service included a clause mandating that suits concerning the service be brought in Virginia. AOL customers must first click on an "I agree" button indicating assent to be bound by AOL's terms of service before they can use the service. This button first appears on a web page in which the user is offered a choice either to read, or simply agree to be bound by, AOL's terms of service. It also appears at the foot of the terms of service, where the user is offered the choice of clicking either an "I agree" or "I disagree" button, by which he accepts or rejects the terms of service. The court held that a valid contract existed, even if the plaintiff did not know of the forum selection clause:

"our Court..stated the general rule that a party who signs an instrument manifests his assent to it and cannot later complain that he did not read the instrument or that he did not understand its contents. Here, plaintiff effectively "signed" the agreement by clicking. "I agree" not once but twice. Under these circumstance, he should not be heard to complain that he did not see, read, etc. and is bound to the terms of his agreement."

Case IV. Diebold Systems Pvt Ltd v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes., [2006] 144 STC 59 (Kar)

Section 2 of Information Technology Act, 2000

Facts of the case

Diebold Systems Pvt Ltd Appellants manufactures and supplies Automated Teller Machines (ATM). Diebold sought a clarification from the Advance Ruling Authority (ARA) in Karnataka on the rate of tax applicable under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 on sale of Automated Teller Machines.

The majority view of the ARA was to classify ATMs as "computer terminals" liable for 4% basic tax as they would fall under Entry 20(ii)(b) of Part 'C' of Second Schedule to the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.

The Chairman of the ARA dissented from the majority view. In his opinion, ATMs would fit into the description of electronic goods, parts and accessories thereof. They would thus attract basic rate of tax of 12% and would fall under Entry 4 of Part 'E' of the Second Schedule to the KST Act.

The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was of the view that the ARA ruling was erroneous and passed an order that ATMs cannot be classified as computer terminals. Findings of the court

1. The enlarged definition of "computers" in the Information Technology Act cannot be made use of interpreting an Entry under fiscal legislation.

2. An Automatic Teller Machine is an electronic device, which allows a bank's customer to make cash withdrawals, and check their account balances at any time without the need of human teller.

3. ATM is not a computer by itself and it is connected to a computer that performs the tasks requested by the person using ATM's. The computer is connected electronically to many ATM's that may be located from some distance from the computer.

Decision of the court Decided On: 31.01.2005

ATMs are not computers, but are electronic devices under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Case V. Ritu Kohli Case

Summary of the case:
Ritu Kohli Case, being India's first case of cyber stalking, was indeed an important revelation into the mind of the Indian cyber stalker. A young Indian girl being cyber stalked by a former colleague of her husband, Ritu Kohli's case took the imagination of India by storm. The case which got cracked however predated the passing of the Indian Cyber law and hence it was just registered as a minor offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Case VI. Avnish Bajaj vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi, (2005) 3 Comp, LJ 364 ( Del), 116(2005)DLT427, 2005(79)DRJ576.

Facts of the case

Avnish Bajaj (Appellants), CEO of Baazee.com, an online auction website, was arrested for distributing cyber pornography. The charges stemmed from the fact that someone had sold copies of a pornographic CD through the Baazee.com website.

The court granted him bail in the case on .

Factors considered by the court were:

1.There was no prima facie evidence that Mr. Bajaj directly or indirectly published the pornography,

2.The actual obscene recording/clip could not be viewed on Baazee.com,

3.Mr. Bajaj was of Indian origin and had family ties in India.

Findings of the court

1.It has not been established from the evidence that any publication took place by the accused, directly or indirectly.

2.The actual obscene recording/clip could not be viewed on the portal of Baazee.com.

3.The sale consideration was not routed through the accused.

4.Prima facie Baazee.com had endeavored to plug the loophole.

5.The accused had actively participated in the investigations.

6.The nature of the alleged offence is such that the evidence has already crystallized and may even be tamper proof.

7.Even though the accused is a foreign citizen, he is of Indian origin with family roots in India.

8.The evidence that has been collected indicates only that the obscene material may have been unwittingly offered for sale on the website

9.The evidence that has been collected indicates that the heinous nature of the alleged crime may be attributable to some other person.

Decision of the court given on 21.12.2004

1. The court granted bail to Mr. Bajaj subject to furnishing two sureties of Rs. 1 lakh each.

2. The court ordered Mr. Bajaj to surrender his passport and not to leave India without the permission of the Court.

3. The court also ordered Mr. Bajaj to participate and assist in the investigation.

Case VII. State of Maharashtra v/s Anand Ashok Khare
Summary of the case:

This case related to the activities of the 23-year-old Telecom engineer Anand Ashok Khare from Mumbai who posed as the famous hacker Dr Neuker and made several attempts to hack the Mumbai police Cyber Cell website.

Case VIII. Firos vs. State of Kerala., AIR2006 Ker 279, 2006.

Facts of the case :

The Government of Kerala issued a notification u/s 70 of the Information Technology Act declaring the FRIENDS application software as a protected system.

The author of the application software filed a petition in the High Court against the said notification. He also challenged the constitutional validity of section 70 of the IT Act.

The Court upheld the validity of both, section 70 of the IT Act, as well as the notification issued by the Kerala Government.

Conclusions of the court given on 24.05.2006

1.There is no conflict between the provisions of Copyright Act and Section 70 of IT Act.

2. Section 70 of the IT Act is not unconstitutional.

3.While interpreting section 70 of the IT Act, a harmonious construction with Copyright Act is needed.

4.Section 70 of the IT Act is not against but subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act.

5.Government cannot unilaterally declare any system as "protected" other than "Government work" falling under section 2(k) of the Copyright Act on which Govt.'s copyright is recognized under Section 17(d) of the said Act.

CaseVIII A. State of Tamilnadu v/s Dr L. Prakash

Summary of the case:

State of Tamilnadu v/s Dr L. Prakash was the landmark case in which Dr L. Prakash was sentenced to life imprisonment in a case pertaining to online obscenity. This case was also landmark in a variety of ways since it demonstrated the resolve of the law enforcement and the judiciary not to let off the hook one of the very educated and sophisticated professionals of India.

Case IX. Benususan Restaurant Corp. v. King., 937 F.Supp. 295 (SDNY, 1996).

Facts of the Case :

Where a New York jazz club operator sued a Missouri club owner claiming trademark infringement, dilution and unfair competition over the use of the name "The Blue Note",. The defendant maintained a web site promoting his Missouri "Blue Note" club and providing a Missouri telephone number through which tickets to the club could be purchased.

The issue, as framed by the Federal District Court, was whether the existence of the web site, without more, was sufficient to vest the court with personal jurisdiction over the defendant under New York's long-arm statue.

The court held that it did not. The court considered whether the existence of the web site and telephone ordering information constituted an "offer to sell" the allegedly infringing "product" in New York, and concluded it was not. The court noted that, although the web site is available to any new Yorker with Internet access, it takes several affirmation steps to obtain access to this particular site, to utilize the information contained there, and to obtain a ticket to the defendant's club.

Case X. Ashcroft, Attorney General et al v. Free Speech Coalition, et al., No 00-795

Facts of the Case:

The US Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the prohibitions of Ss.2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are overboard and unconstitutional. Being part of the Child pornography prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) S. 2256 (8)(B) bans a range of sexually explicit images, sometimes called "virtual child pornography," that appear to depict minors but were produced by means other than using real children, such as through the use of youthful-looking adults or computer-imaging technology and S.2256(8)(D) is aimed at preventing the production or distribution of pornographic material pandered as child pornography.

Justice Kennedy opined:

"Congress may pass valid laws to protect children from abuse, and it has. The prospect of crime. however, by itself does not justify laws suppressing protected speech..."

As a general principle, the First Amendment bars the government from dictating what see or read or speak or hear. The freedom of speech has its limits; it does not embrace certain categories of speech, including defamation, incitement, obscenity, and pornography produced with real children.

The Government submits ."that virtual child pornography whets the appetites of pedophiles and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct. This rationale cannot sustain the provision in question. The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. The government "cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person's private thoughts." First Amendment freedom are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought." (Decided on April 16, 2002)

Case XI. State v/s Amit Prasad

Summary of the case:
State v/s Amit Prasad, was India's first case of hacking registered under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act 2000. A case with unique facts, this case demonstrated how the provisions of the Indian Cyber law could be interpreted in any manner, depending on which side of the offence you were on.

Case XII. R v. Graham Waddon., Southwark [Crown Court, 30/6/1999].

Facts of the Case :

The defendant was charged with numerous counts of publishing obscene articles contrary to S. 2(1) of UK's Obscene Publications Act 1959. The defendant had created pornographic images, which were illegal under the UK's Obscene Publications Act. He ran a series of sites based in the Us, hosting them on a US based Internet service provider. These images were accessible to anyone in the world via the Internet who became a subscriber by giving credit card details. He was charging UK customers 25 pounds a month for access. The subscriber was given a password and could log onto the various websites to obtain the images. It was submitted on behalf of the defendant that, because the Internet publication had necessarily occurred abroad, therefore the instant court did not have jurisdiction.

Hardy Christopher, J. held:

"Publishing an article under S. 1(3)(b) of the 1959 Act included data stored electronically and transmitted. To transmit simply meant to send from one place or person to another. In the instant case, an act of publication took place when the data was transmitted by the defendant or his agent to the service provider, and the publication or transmission was in effect still taking place when the data was received. both the sending and receiving took place within the jurisdiction of the court and it was irrelevant that the transmission may have left the jurisdiction in between the sending and receiving".

CaseXIII. Syed Asifuddin and Ors. V. The State of AP. & Anr., 2005CriLJ4314

Facts of the case :

Tata Indicom employees were arrested for manipulation of the electronic 32-bit number (ESN) programmed into cell phones that were exclusively franchised to Reliance Infocomm.

The court held that such manipulation amounted to tampering with computer source code as envisaged by section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Issues raised by the Defense in the case:.

1.It is always open for the subscriber to change from one service provider to the other service provider.

2.The subscriber who wants to change from Tata Indicom always takes his handset, to other service providers to get service connected and to give up Tata services.

3.The handsets brought to Tata by Reliance subscribers are capable of accommodating two separate lines and can be activated on principal assignment mobile ( NAM 1 or NAM 2). The mere activation of NAM 1 or NAM 2 by Tata in relation to a handset brought to it by a Reliance subscriber does not amount to any crime.

4.A telephone handset is neither a computer nor a computer system containing a computer programmed.

5.There is no law in force which requires the maintenance of "computer source code". Hence section 65 of the Information Technology Act does not apply.

Courts Observation:

1.As per section 2 of the Information Technology Act, any electronic, magnetic or optical device used for storage of information received through satellite, microwave or other communication media and the devices which are programmable and capable of retrieving any information by manipulations of electronic, magnetic or optical impulses is a computer which can be used as computer system in a computer network.

2.The instructions or programmed given to computer in a language known to the computer are not seen by the users of the computer/consumers of computer functions. This is known as source code in computer parlance.

3.A city can be divided into several cells. A person using a phone in one cell will be plugged to the central transmitter of the telecom provider. This central transmitter will receive the signals and then divert them to the relevant phones.

4.When the person moves from one cell to another cell in the same city, the system i.e., Mobile Telephone Switching Office (MTSO) automatically transfers signals from tower to tower.

5.All cell phone service providers have special codes dedicated to them and these are intended to identify the phone, the phone's owner and the service provider.

6.System Identification Code (SID) is a unique 5-digit number that is assigned to each carrier by the licensor. Every cell phone operator is required to obtain SID from the Government of India. SID is programmed into a phone when one purchases a service plan and has the phone activated.

7.Electronic Serial Number (ESN) is a unique 32-bit number programmed into the phone when it is manufactured by the instrument manufacturer. ESN is a permanent part of the phone.

8.Mobile Identification Number (MIN) is a 10-digit number derived from cell phone number given to a subscriber. MIN is programmed into a phone when one purchases a service plan.

9.When the cell phone is switched on, it listens for a SID on the control channel, which is a special frequency used by the phone and base station to talk to one another about things like call set-up and channel changing.

10. If the phone cannot find any control channels to listen to, the cell phone displays "no service" message as it is out of range.

11. When cell phone receives SID, it compares it to the SID programmed into the phone and if these code numbers match, cell knows that it is communicating with its home system. Along with the SID, the phone also transmits registration request and MTSO which keeps track of the phone's location in a database, knows which cell phone you are using and gives a ring.

12. So as to match with the system of the cell phone provider, every cell phone contains a circuit board, which is the brain of the phone. It is a combination of several computer chips programmed to convert analog to digital and digital to analog conversion and translation of the outgoing audio signals and incoming signals.

13. This is a micro processor similar to the one generally used in the compact disk of a desktop computer. Without the circuit board, cell phone instrument cannot function.

14. When a Reliance customer opts for its services, the MIN and SID are programmed into the handset. If some one manipulates and alters ESN, handsets which are exclusively used by them become usable by other service providers like TATA Indicom.

Court Decided On: 29.07.2005

1.A cell phone is a computer as envisaged under the Information Technology Act.

2.ESN and SID come within the definition of "computer source code" under section 65 of the Information Technology Act.

3.When ESN is altered, the offence under Section 65 of Information Technology Act is attracted because every service provider has to maintain its own SID code and also give a customer specific number to each instrument used to avail the services provided.

4.Whether a cell phone operator is maintaining computer source code, is a matter of evidence.

5.In Section 65 of Information Technology Act the disjunctive word "or" is used in between the two phrases -

a. "when the computer source code is required to be kept"

b. "maintained by law for the time being in force"

Case XIV. Arif Azim case

Summary of the case:
Arif Azim case was India's first convicted cyber crime case. A case pertaining to the mis-use of credit cards numbers by a Call Center employee, this case generated a lot of interest. This was the first case in which any cyber criminal India was convicted. However, keeping in mind the age of the accused and no past criminal record, Arif Azim the accused was sentenced to probation for a period of one year.

Case XV. The Arzika case

Summary of the case:
Pornography and obscene electronic content has continued to engage the attention of the Indian mind. Cases pertaining to online obscenity, although reported in media, often have not been registered. The Arzika case was the first in this regard.

Case XVI. The Air Force Bal Bharti School case

Summary of the case:
The Air Force Bal Bharti School case demonstrated how Section 67 of the Information Technology Act 2000 could be applicable for obscene content created by a school going boy.

Case XVII. P.R. Transport Agency through its partner Sri Prabhakar Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) through Secretary, Ministry of Coal, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through its Chairman, Chief Sales Manager Road Sales, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Metal and Scrap Trading Corporation Ltd. (MSTC Ltd.) through its Chairman cum Managing Director., Writ Petition No. 58468 of 2005

History of the case

Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (BCC) held an e-auction for coal in different lots.

P.R. Transport Agency's (PRTA) bid was accepted for 4000 metric tons of coal from Dobari Colliery.

The acceptance letter was issued on 19^thJuly 2005 by e-mail to PRTA's e-mail address. Acting upon this acceptance, PRTA deposited the full amount of Rs. 81.12 lakh through a cheque in favour of BCC. This cheque was accepted and encashed by BCC.

BCC did not deliver the coal to PRTA. Instead it e-mailed PRTA saying that the sale as well as the e-auction in favour of PRTA stood cancelled "due to some technical and unavoidable reasons".

The only reason for this cancellation was that there was some other person whose bid for the same coal was slightly higher than that of PRTA. Due to some flaw in the computer or its programmed or feeding of data the higher bid had not been considered earlier.

This communication was challenged by PRTA in the High Court of Allahabad. [Note: Allahabad is the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP)]

BCC objected to the "territorial jurisdiction" of the Court on the grounds that no part of the cause of action had arisen within U.P.

1. The communication of the acceptance of the tender was received by the petitioner by e-mail at Chandauli (U.P.). Hence the contract (from which the dispute arose) was completed at Chandauli (U.P). The completion of the contract is a part of the "cause of action'.

2.The place where the contract was completed by receipt of communication of acceptance is a place where 'part of cause of action' arises.

1.In reference to contracts made by telephone, telex or fax, the contract is complete when and where the acceptance is received. However, this principle can apply only where the transmitting terminal and the receiving terminal are at fixed points.

2.In case of e-mail, the data (in this case acceptance) can be transmitted from any where by the e-mail account holder. It goes to the memory of a 'server' which may be located anywhere and can be retrieved by the addressee account holder from anywhere in the world. Therefore, there is no fixed point either of transmission or of receipt.

3.Section 13(3) of the Information Technology Act has covered this difficulty of "no fixed point either of transmission or of receipt". According to this section "...an electronic record is deemed to be received at the place where the addressee has his place of business."

4.The acceptance of the tender will be deemed to be received by PRTA at the places where it has place of business. In this case it is Varanasi and Chandauli (both in U.P.)

1. The acceptance was received by PRTA at Chandauli / Varanasi. The contract became complete by receipt of such acceptance.

2. Both these places are within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Allahabad. Therefore, a part of the cause of action has arisen in U.P. and the court has territorial jurisdiction.

Where the "totalnews.com" website used framing technology to set a news story from other website within the overall Total News frame by blocking banner advertisements and other distinguishing features.

The U.S. District Court Southern District of New York passed an order of settlement stating that "the defendants agree permanently to cease the practice of framing plaintiff's websites". Plaintiffs agree that Defendants may link from the Totalnewa.com website or any other website to nay plaintiff's website, provided that:

(a) Defendants may link to plaintiff's website only via hyperlinks consisting of the names of the linked sites in plain text, which may be highlighted;

(b) Defendants may not use on any website, as hyperlinks or in any other way, any of plaintiff's proprietary logos or other distinctive graphics, video or audio material, nor may defendants otherwise link in any manner reasonably likely to: (i) imply affiliation with, endorsement or sponsorship by any plaintiff; (ii)cause confusion, mistake or deception; (iii) dilute Plaintiff's marks; or (iv) otherwise violate state or federal law;

(c) Each plaintiff's agreement to permit linking by defendants remains revocable, on 15 business days notice, at each Plaintiff's sole discretion. Revocation by any plaintiff shall not affect any other terms and conditions set forth herein. If defendants refuse to cease linking upon notice, and any plaintiff brings an action to enforce its rights under this subparagraph, it shall be an affirmative defense that defendants conduct does not otherwise infringe or violate plaintiffs rights under any theory of any intellectual property, unfair competition or other law.