The offence of extortion is not new but in existence from long time. The same has, however, taken different shades and ramifications. Under the traditional Penal law the offence of extortion is completed the moment an offender intentionally puts any person in fear of “any injury” to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security(1). The expression “injury” denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property(2). The modern form of extortion is totally different from its traditional counterpart. The hackers have found a way to lock up the electronic documents on any person’s computer and then demand $ 200 over the internet to get them back. The modus operendi is very simple. The files and documents are encrypted after hacking the computer of the victim. A ransom note is left behind that contains a contact address in the form of e-mail address. Once contacted, a demand of $ 200 is made to “unlock” the files and documents(3).

It will be interesting to observe the reaction of the government in this regard. The government, in the past, has preferred to amend the IT Act, 2000 for every new change in the cyber law. It would be interesting to see the reaction of the government in this case. It must be appreciated that it is not the “enactment” of a law but the desire, will and efforts to accept and enforce it in its true letter and spirit, which can confer the most strongest, secure and safest protection for any purpose. The enforcement of these rights requires a “qualitative effort” and not a “quantitative effort”. The nature of internet makes it very difficult to control and regulate. The legal systems of all the countries of the world have felt this “vulnerability” of the internet. Thus, enacting lot of laws will not serve any purpose. The requirement of the hour is the dedicated enforcement of the “existing laws” instead of pointing towards the “inadequacies” of the same. The Courts are required to use the “purposive and updating interpretation” while interpreting the provisions of the IT Act, 2000. If at all the requirement of liberal use of purposive and updating interpretation is felt it must be for interpreting the provisions of the IT Act, 2000.

© Praveen Dalal. All rights reserved with the author.
* Consultant and Advocate, Delhi High Court
Contact at:  pd37@rediffmail.com/  perry4law@yahoo.com
Telephone No: 9899169611.

(1) Section 383 of IPC, 1860.
(2) Section 44 of IPC, 1860.
(3) Alert! Hackers on e-extortion spree, Times International, TOI, New Delhi, 25-05-05, page 16.