FB post on Mumbai shutdown after Bal Thackerays death:

Section 66A: Sending offensive messages through communication device

Posting comments on Facebook about late Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's death led to the
arrest of two 21 year old girls. Shaheen Dhada questioned the total shutdown of Mumbai
due to Bal Thackerays funeral on her facebook account through a status update. It said that
People like Thackeray are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh for that
Her friend Rinu Srinivasan who liked the comment was also arrested after a local Sena leader
lodged a complaint.
The girls were arrested under Section 295A of the IPC ("outraging religious feelings of any
class") and Section 66A ("sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.")
of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 295A of the IPC is cognizable and nonbailable, and hence the police have the powers to arrest a person accused of this without a
warrant. Section 66A of the IT Act is cognizable and bailable.
A mob of Shiv Sainiks attacked Dhadas uncles orthopaedic hospital after the post but no
arrests were made in relation to this. The law by which the friend who liked the status update
was arrested was questionable. Indian Constitution clearly protects the 'freedom of speech
and expression', so even non-verbal expression is protected. Abuse of the powers of the
police and bad law (section 66A of the IT act) had to be blamed for this issue.
Thousands of people were making such similar comments on various forms of media like
print, internet (social networking sites like twitter, orkut, facebook etc).It was wrong to single
out Shaheen Dhada and her friend and arrest them. It is not only a case of "social media
regulation", but also a case of restriction on freedom of speech and expression by both the
law and the police.
Section 66A makes certain kinds of speech-activities ("causing annoyance") illegal if
communicated online, but legal if that same speech-activity is published in a newspaper. This
Facebook status update should not grant Shaheen Dhada any special immunity; the fact of
that particular update not being punishable under s.295 or s.66A (or any other law) should.

HSBC BPO fraud:

Section 66: Computer related offences
Section 72: Breach of confidentiality and privacy
An employee of HSBC banks Bangalore based BPO collected the personal data of 20 UK
based customers and passed it on to his associates in UK in 2004. They had siphoned off
233000 Pounds (1.8 crore) from their accounts. The banks customers complained about
money being siphoned off from their accounts. Following the complaint the bank investigated
the case and the accused Nadeem Kashmiri, 24 was arrested.
A complaint was lodged with the cyber crime cell. He was charged against sections 66
( Computer related offences ) and 72 ( Breach of confidentiality and privacy ) of the
information technology act which related to hacking and breach of privacy. He was also
charged under sections relating to cheating under Indian Penal Code. Kashmiri served as
customer services executive and thus had access to customer ID card numbers, date of birth,
parents name and other personal information. He passed on this information to the scamsters
in UK. They transferred money from 20 accounts through telebanking, debit cards and
ATM.Authorities managed to freeze transactions on eight accounts amounting to around
117,000 pounds,'' a senior cyber crime official said.
His qualification was 12th standard and he had joined HSBC by producing fake certificates.
HSBC told police that records he furnished with the BPO were false.
Before joining HSBC he worked with a cell phone shop and then moved to a BPO where he
worked for a month following which he joined Police suspected that he had accomplices in
India too. Background check of employees could prevent the occurrence of such cases. Such
crimes occur more frequently in the west. But their legal machinery comes down very hard
on cyber criminals. Here it takes years for sentence to be delivered and this encourages
people to keep committing such crimes.

AIB Roast:
Section 66A: Sending offensive messages through communication device
Section 67 : Publishing or transmitting obscene material in e-form
All India Bakchod (AIB) a popular comedy group had held a roast (a comedy event where a
celebrity is mocked) of Arjun Kapoor and Ranveer Singh in a stadium in December 2014 and
later uploaded the video on YouTube. The YouTube video had received 8 million hits from
the viewers. An FIR was lodged on the basis of the complaint by Social activist Santosh
Daundkar by lawyer Abha Singh against president of National Sports Council of India
(NSCI) Jayantilal Shah, secretary general NSCI Ravinder Aggarwal and participants in the
AIB Roast including Karan Johar, Ranveer Singh, Rohan Joshi, Tanmay Bhatt, Gursimran
Khamba, Ashish Shakya, Aditi Mittal, Deepika Padukone, Aalia Bhatt, Rajeev Masand, and
Arjun Kapoor. It was alleged that the show was 'pre-scripted' and vulgar and had used
obscene and pornographic language as per Abha Singhs statement.
She stated in her complaint that the AIB roast could not be justified under the argument of
free speech because the current law does not allow for such obscene speech. She also
mentioned in the complaint that, "If they (advocates of free speech) think that law on
obscenity is improper and constrains freedom of speech and expression then the right course
for them is to approach the government for changing the law, these votaries of free speech
cannot take law in their own hands and then utter pornographic words in front of women
audience, more so at the time when the entire country is concerned with women safety."
The complaint claimed that such a show should not have been allowed on land that has been
leased out by the government to be used for sports, etc. as "crimes against women are being
influenced by such obscene and pornographic happenings".
The social activist Santosh Daundkar had previously been involved in other complaints like
the Adarsh Housing Society case, Shah Rukh Khan's Mumbai bungalow and the purchase of
bullet-proof jackets for Mumbai Police after November 2008 terror attacks among others as
per the report.
The police investigated the case under Section 67 and 66A of the Information Technology
Act, 2000 for putting up an obscene, pornographic and vulgar show on the internet.

Online credit card fraud eBay:

Section 66: Computer related offences
Debasis Pandit, a BCA student and Rabi Narayan Sahu were arrested in 2009 for hacking into
the eBay India website and make purchases in the names of credit card holders. They were
forwarded to the court of sub divisional judicial magistrate, Rourkela. They gathered the
details of around 700 credit cardholders and then made purchases worth Rs.12.5 lakh using
their passwords. A case had been registered against the accused under sections 420 and 34 of
the Indian penal code and Section 66 (computer related offences) of the IT act.
Superintendent of police D.S.Kutty said that besides the duo there were four others who were
involved in the racked but they were untraceable.
The fraud came to the notice of the eBay officials when several purchases were made from
Rourkela while the customers were based in cities Bangalore, Baroda, Jaipur and even
London reported Naini.V the deputy manager of eBay. The company informed Rourkela
police about this issue. The goods purchased were delivered to the address of Sahu.
Email threat to BSE
Section-66F: Cyber Terrorism
A case of cyber terrorism had been registered by the Mumbai police on May 5, 2009 when
a threat email was sent to the BSE and NSE on Monday for the first time in the state since an
amendment to the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The MRA Marg police and the Cyber Crime Investigation Cell were jointly probing the case.
The suspect has been detained in the case.An email was sent to BSEs administrative email
ID corp.relations@bseindia.com at around 10.44 am on Monday by one Shahab Md with an
ID sh.itaiyeb125@yahoo.in challenging the security agencies to prevent a terror attack said
the police. The ISP being sify the IP address of the sender was traced to Patna in Bihar.
The sender had created the email id just four minutes before sending the mail. The sender
had, while creating the new ID, given two mobile numbers in the personal details column.
Both the numbers belong to a photo frame-maker in Patna, said an officer.

Arrest of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi for displaying cartoons that mocked Parliament
Section 66A: Sending offensive messages through communication device
Cyber crime cell of the Mumbai Police charged Cartoonist Aseem Trivedi with sedition under
section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act and
section 66(A) of the IT Act on 9 September 2012, for displaying cartoons that mocked
Parliament and corruption on his website and Facebook page.
Amit Katarnayea, a legal advisor for a Mumbai-based NGO filed a complaint against the
cartoonist in December 2011.He alleged the cartoonist for his derogatory sketches that
depicted the National Emblem and the Parliament in a bad light.
The complainant said that the sentiments of the nation were offended by the cartoons that
were uploaded on social networking sites. Trivedis cartoons purportedly depicted Parliament
as a giant commode and showed the national emblem with wolves instead of lions. The
caricatures were shared on other social media