The Delhi Police has recently arrested Krishan Kumar for illegally using the internet account of Col. (Retd.) J.S. Bajwa. Krishan Kumar has been remanded tojudiciacustody for 6 days.

Krishan Kumar has been arrested for violating the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act. The said arrest of India's second Cyber Thief raises numerous important and crucial Cyberlaw issues. Can The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 be extended to cyberspace ? Can theft of Internet hours be brought within the ambit of section 25 of the said Act? It may be pertinent to mention that till today, there are no cyberlaws in our country. The Information Technology Bill, 1999 has been passed by both the houses of the Parliament but is awaiting the assent from the President. Even the Information Technology Bill, 1999 does not purport to amend either the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 or Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines the punishment for theft. Numerous gray areas are arising in the path of the progress of India's first cyber trial.

The important thing that arises for consideration is whether the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 in its present form is capable of being interpreted in today's cyber age to include cyberspace within its ambit?

The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 was enacted 115 years back with the main object being "to give power to the Government and to any company or person licensed under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1876, and specially empowered in this behalf, to place telegraph lines under or over property belonging whether to private persons or to public bodies." The preamble of the Telegraph Act says that it is an act to amend to the law relating to telegraphs in India. 

Section 3 of the Indian Telegraph Act defines telegraph in the following words :-
"telegraph" means any appliance, instrument, material or apparatus used or capable of use for transmission or reception of signs, signals; writing, images and sounds or intelligence of any nature by wire, visual or other electro-magnetic emissions, Radio waves or Hertzian waves, galvanic, electric or magnetic means. 

Section 25 of the Telegraph Act, which has been alleged to have been invoked in India's first Cyber trial, talks of intentionally damaging or tampering with telegraphs. The said section says - "If any person, intending - (a) to prevent or obstruct the transmission or delivery of any message, or (b) to intercept or to acquaint himself with the contents of any message, or (c) to commit mischief,
damages, removes, tampers with or touches any battery, machinery, telegraph line post or other thing whatever, being part of or used in or about any telegraph or in the working thereof, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

The definition of telegraph, though loosely defined, yet cannot be so much stretched so as to include Internet and Cyberspace within its ambit. In any case, in today's scenario, telegraph and Internet are two separate concepts, each having their own separate meaning and implications. In case, if we endeavour to include Internet within the definition of telegraph, the same shall be an extremely dangerous exercise. 

Also, it will be very difficult to bring the cyber crime of stealing of Internet hours or for that matter, using stolen Internet hours, within the ambit of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 

Section 378 of IPC defines theft and section 379 talks of the punishment for theft. However, section 378 of IPC defines theft as being of theft of moveable property. Section 378 makes it clear that moveable property is one which is severed from the earth. But can internet time be brought within the ambit of property, moveable or immoveable. It can be argued that time has never been considered as a property at any point of time in history.

This present test case raises a lot of Cyberlaw issues which would have to be necessarily addressed in order to achieve the goal of a crime free Cyberspace.

All eyes are now on India's first cyber trial !