| . | Amongst the many ambiguities that have crept into the ITA-2000 is the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating officer (AO) regarding cyber crimes falling under the Ch 11 of the ITA-2000. The Act defines two sets of crimes one under Ch 9 and the other under Ch 11. The definition of "Hacking" under Ch 11 and "Unauthorised Access" under Ch 9, both of which are same, indicate that there is an intention to keep crimes and penalties under the two chapters separate. Adjudication has been mentioned only under Ch 9 and not under Ch 11. The conclusion therefore is that Ch 9 refers to those crimes for which the affected person can claim compensation and Ch 11 refers to crimes for which penalties may be levied by the State. The adjudicator has jurisdiction only over Ch 9 crimes and not Ch 11 crimes. Similarly, the Police has powers to act on their own only in case of Ch 11 crimes and not Ch 9 crimes. Ch 9 crimes are similar to "Civil" crimes for which Police can act only when a complaint is filed or a competant court calls for investigation. Also Sec 64 which provides for recovery of penalty as a "Land arrear" applies only to Ch 11 crimes where the dues are to the Government. It is not clear if this distinction was actually intended or is a result
of faulty drafting of the Act. The reason to suspect lack of intention
is that it appears unreasonable that serious crimes such as "Frauds"
are not punishable under Ch 11 while simple crimes such as "Publication
and Distribution of obscene material are punishable under the Ch 11.
|
. |