prominent businessman from Andhra Pradesh was exposed after officials of the

department got hold of computers used by the accused person.

Sony.Sambandh.Com Case78
In May 2002, someone logged onto the website under the identity of Barbara
Campa and ordered a Sony Colour Television set and a cordless head phone. She
gave her credit card number for payment and requested that the products be
delivered to Arif Azim in Noida. The payment was duly cleared by the credit card
agency and the transaction processed. After following the relevant procedures of
due diligence and checking, the company delivered the items to Arif Azim. At the
time of delivery, the company took digital photographs showing the delivery being
accepted by Arif Azim .The transaction closed at that, but after one and a half
months the credit card agency informed the company that this was an unauthorized
transaction as the real owner had denied having made the purchase.
The company lodged a complaint for online cheating at the Central Bureau of
Investigation which registered a case. The matter was investigated into and Arif
Azim was arrested. Investigations revealed that Arif Azim, while working at a call
center in Noida gained access to the credit card number of an American national
which he misused on the company‖s site. The CBI recovered the colour television
and the cordless head phone. The court convicted Arif Azim for cheating under
Section 418, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code — this being the first time that
a cybercrime has been convicted. The court, however, felt that as the accused was a
young boy of 24 years and a first-time convict, a lenient view needed to be taken.
The court therefore released the accused on probation for one year.
The judgment is of immense significance for the entire nation. Besides being the
first conviction in a cybercrime matter, it has shown that the Indian Penal Code can
be effectively applied to certain categories of cybercrimes which are not covered
under the Information Technology Act 2000. Secondly, a judgment of this sort
sends out a clear message to all that the law cannot be taken for a ride.
The section states:79
91. Summons to produce document or other thing.

78
Cyber Crimes: Law and Practice (.pdf); retrieved from http://www.img.kerala.gov.in/docs/downloads/cyber%20crimes.pdf
S.91 of CrPC – the Omnipotent provision? By SFLC_ADMIN, March 19, 2013; retrieved from http://sflc.in/s-91-of-crpc-the-
79

omnipotent-provision/

132
Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the
production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the
purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code
by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such
officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document
or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it,
at the time and place stated in the summons or order.
(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other
thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such
document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the
same.
In short, the provision gives the powers to a court or a police officer in charge of a
police station to ask for production of any document for the purpose of
investigation. Now, let us examine the powers or the lack of it of an officer in
charge of a police station under this section in the case of online content:

8.6 Deletion/blocking of content

The provision only enables the police officer to conduct an investigation and can
by no stretch of imagination be used as a censorship tool to delete or block content.
Even in the case of books or newspapers or other documents, the State
Government will have to notify an order forfeiting such book or newspaper and
only based on such an order can a police officer seize such publications as per
Section 95 of the CrPC. This cannot be done under S.91 of CrPC. The means by
which a direction can be issued to block content is under S.69A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 as per procedures laid down under Information Technology
(Procedures and safeguards for blocking for access of Information by Public)
Rules, 2009 or by an order from a competent court.
Investigation in the case of non-cognizable offences – Defamation is an example of
a non-cognizable offence. As per Section 155 (2) of the Code of Criminal
procedure, in the case of a non-cognizable offence, a police officer cannot conduct
an investigation without obtaining permission from a Magistrate Court. However,
it is often seen, as in the case of the instance cited earlier, that the police proceed

133