Case 1: First conviction in India
A complaint was filed in by Sony India Private Ltd, which runs a website called sony-sambandh.com, targeting Non Resident Indians. The website enables NRIs to send Sony products to their friends and relatives in India after they pay for it online.
The company undertakes to deliver the products to the concerned recipients. 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.A lady 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 under Section 418, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
The matter was investigated into and Arif Azim was arrested. Investigations revealed that Arif Azim, while working at a call centre 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 accused admitted his guilt and the court of Shri Gulshan Kumar Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, convicted Arif Azim under Section 418, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code — this being the first time that a cyber crime 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.
 
Case-2: First juvenile accused in a cyber crime case.
In April  2001 a person from New Delhi complained to the crime branch regarding the website. Amazing.com, he claimed, carried vulgar remarks about his daughter and a few of her classmates. During the inquiry, print-outs of the site were taken and proceedings initiated.
After investigation a student of Class 11 and classmate of the girl was arrested.
 The juvenile board in Nov 2003 refused to discharge the boy accused of creating a website with vulgar remarks about his classmate.
The accused’s advocate had sought that his client be discharged on the ground that he was not in a stable state of mind. Seeking discharge, the advocate further said that the trial has been pending for about two years.
While rejecting the accused’s application, metropolitan magistrate Santosh Snehi Mann said: ‘The mental condition under which the juvenile came into conflict with the law shall be taken into consideration during the final order.’ Mann, however, dropped the sections of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act.
The accused would face trial under the Information Technology Act and for intending to outrage the modesty of a woman. She held the inquiry could not be closed on technical ground, especially when the allegations were not denied by the accused.
 
Case 3: First case convicted under Information Technology Act 2000 of India.
The case related to posting of obscene, defamatory and annoying message about a divorcee woman  in the yahoo message group. E-Mails were also forwarded to the victim for information by the accused through a false e-mail account opened by him in the name of the victim. The posting of the message resulted in annoying phone calls to the lady in the belief that she was soliciting.
Based on a complaint made by the victim in February 2004,  the Police traced the accused to Mumbai and arrested him within the next few days.  The accused was a known family friend of the victim and was reportedly interested in marrying  her. She however married another person. This  marriage later ended in divorce and the accused started contacting her once again. On her reluctance to marry him, the accused took up the harassment through the Internet.
On 24-3-2004 Charge Sheet was filed u/s 67 of IT Act 2000, 469 and 509 IPC before The Hon’ble Addl. CMM Egmore by citing 18 witnesses and 34 documents and material objects. The same was taken on file in C.C.NO.4680/2004.  On the prosecution side 12 witnesses were examined and entire documents were marked.  The Defence argued that the offending mails would have been given either by ex-husband of the complainant or the complainant her self to implicate the accused as accused alleged to have turned down the request of the complainant to marry her.  Further the Defence counsel argued that some of the documentary evidence was not sustainable under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act.  However, the court based on the expert witness of Naavi and other evidence produced including the witness of the Cyber Cafe owners came to the conclusion that the crime was conclusively proved.
The court has also held  that because of the meticulous  investigation carried on by the IO, the origination of the obscene message was traced out and the real culprit has been brought before the court of law.  In this case Sri S. Kothandaraman, Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the Government conducted the case.
Honourable Sri.Arulraj, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, delivered the judgement on 5-11-04 as follows:
“The accused is found guilty of offences under section 469, 509 IPC and 67 of IT Act 2000 and the accused is convicted and is sentenced for the offence to undergo RI for 2 years under 469 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/-and for the offence u/s 509 IPC sentenced to undergo 1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and for the offence u/s 67 of IT Act 2000  to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.4000/-  All sentences to run concurrently.”
 
Case 4: Father & son convicted under IT act in Kerala.
The Additional District and Sessions Court here has upheld a lower court’s verdict in the first cyber case filed in the State sentencing a Pentecostal Church priest and his son to rigorous imprisonment in 2006.
Disposing of the appeal filed by the priest T.S. Balan and his son, Aneesh Balan, against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, on Wednesday,
Additional District Judge T.U. Mathewkutty said it was time the government took effective measures to check the growing trend of cyber crimes in the State.The court upheld the magistrate’s order sentencing the two to three-year rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 25,000 under Section 67 of the information technology (IT) Act; awarding six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code; and ordering one year rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 469 of the code.
The court revoked the sentence under Section 66 of the IT Act.
The cyber case dates back to January-February 2002 and the priest and his son became the first to be convicted of committing a cyber crime.
The two were found guilty of morphing, web-hosting and e-mailing nude pictures of Pastor Abraham and his family.
Balan had worked with the pastor until he fell out with him and was shown the door by the latter.
Balan joined the Sharon Pentecostal Church later.
The prosecution said the duo had morphed photographs of Abraham, his son, Valsan Abraham, and daughter, Starla Luke, and e-mailed them from fake mail IDs with captions.
The morphed pictures were put on the web and the accused, who edited a local magazine called The Defender, wrote about these photos in his publication.
Valsan received the pictures on the Internet and asked his father to file a complaint to the police. A police party raided the house of Balan and his son at Perumbavoor and collected evidences.
The magistrate’s verdict came after a four-year trial, for which the court had to procure a computer with Internet connection and accessories.
The police had to secure the services of a computer analyst too to piece together the evidences. Twenty-nine witnesses, including the internet service provider and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., had to depose before the court.
 
Case 5: Well-known orthopaedist in Chennai got life.
Dr. L Prakash stood convicted of manipulating his patients in various ways, forcing them to commit sex acts on camera and posting the pictures and videos on the Internet.
The 50-year-old doctor landed in the police net in December 2001 when a young man who had acted in one of his porn films lodged a complaint with the police.
Apparently the doctor had promised the young man that the movie would be circulated only in select circles abroad and had the shock of his life when he saw himself in a porn video posted on the web.
Subsequent police investigations opened up a Pandora's box. Prakash and his younger brother, settled in the US, had piled up close to one lakh shots and video footages, some real and many morphed.
They reportedly minted huge money in the porn business, it was stated.
Fast track court judge R Radha, who convicted all the four in Feb 2008 , also imposed a fine of Rs 1.27 lakh on Prakash, the main accused in the case, and Rs 2,500 each on his three associates - Saravanan, Vijayan and Asir Gunasingh.
The Judge while awarding life term to Prakash observed that considering the gravity of the offences committed by the main accused, maximum punishment under the Immoral Trafficking Act (life imprisonment) should be given to him and no leniency should be shown.
The Judge sentenced Prakash under the Immoral Trafficking Act, IPC, Arms Act and Indecent Representation of Women (Prevention) Act among others.
 
Case 6:Juvenile found guilty for sending threatening email.
A 16 year old student from ahmedabad who threatedned to blow up Andheri Railway station in an email message was found guilty by the Juvenile court in Mumbai.
A private news channel received an email on 18 March 2008 claiming sender as Dawood Ibrahim gang saying a bomb would be planted on an unspecified train to blow it up.
The case was registered in Andheri Police station under section 506 of IPC and transfered to cyber crime investigation cell. During Investigation CCIC traced the cyber cafe from which the email account was created and threatening email was sent.
Cafe owner told police about freinds which had come that day to surf the net.Police Summoned them and found that the system which was used to send email was accessed by only one customer. On 22nd March 08, police arrested the boy a Class XII science student who during interrogation said that he sent the email for fun of having his prank flashed as “breaking news’’ on television.