Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000 and its Link with Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalises computer-related offences when acts described under Section 43 are committed dishonestly or fraudulently. It converts civil wrongs into criminal offences when mens rea exists.

When such acts result in cheating, fraud, identity misuse, or wrongful loss, corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) may also apply. Thus, Section 66 operates as a special cyber offence, supplemented by general criminal law.

Section 66 – Computer Related Offences

If any person dishonestly or fraudulently: Accesses a computer without permission, Downloads or copies data, Introduces malware, Disrupts or damages systems, Denies access to authorised users, Manipulates accounts they commit an offence under Section 66.

Punishment

Imprisonment up to 3 years

Fine up to ₹5 lakh

Or both


Essential Elements

1. Unauthorised act (Section 43 act)

2. Dishonest or fraudulent intention

3. Resulting loss or damage

Mens rea converts civil liability into criminal liability.

Flowchart – Section 66 Offence

Unauthorised Computer Act (Sec 43)

            ↓

Dishonest / Fraudulent Intent

            ↓

Criminal Offence under Sec 66

            ↓

Punishment


Link with Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

The same conduct may attract BNS provisions when it affects property, identity, or financial interests.

✅ Section 318 BNS – Cheating

If hacking is done to deceive and obtain wrongful gain.

✅ Section 336 BNS – Forgery of Electronic Record

If digital records are falsified.

✅ Section 303 BNS – Theft

If data or digital assets are dishonestly taken.

✅ Section 316 BNS – Criminal Breach of Trust

If entrusted access is misused.

Thus, cyber hacking may amount to both:

Section 66 IT Act

Cheating/forgery/theft under BNS


Legal Principle

IT Act = Special cyber statute

BNS = General criminal statute

Special law governs cyber conduct; BNS punishes broader criminal consequences. Parallel prosecution is legally possible.


Flowchart – IT Act + BNS Interaction

Hacking / Digital Misuse

            ↓

Offence under Section 66 IT Act

            ↓

Fraud / cheating / forgery involved?

            ↓

Yes → BNS Sections 303 / 316 / 318 / 336

            ↓

Dual criminal liability


Conclusion

Section 66 criminalises dishonest digital interference, while BNS provisions punish its financial and social consequences. Together they create a dual legal shield against cyber fraud and hacking. Section 66 addresses the cyber mechanism of wrongdoing, while BNS addresses its criminal impact, ensuring comprehensive accountability in the digital age.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

📘 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)

🔹 Where BSA Applies All Judicial Proceedings in or before any Court Civil and Criminal trials (in courts of law) Proceedings before tribunals if declared as courts by statute Oral evidence → statements made in court by witnesses Documentary evidence → documents produced for court’s inspection 🔹 Where BSA Does NOT Apply Affidavits presented to any Court or officer Even if notarized, it’s not “evidence” unless statute allows ✔️ Acceptable only if CPC, CrPC, or a Special Act permits Arbitration proceedings Conciliation / mediation / Lok Adalat proceedings (not judicial) Statements made outside court (unless admitted through exceptions like dying declaration, admissions, etc.) 🔹 Statutory Exceptions (When Affidavit = Evidence) Civil Procedure Code (Order XIX) → Court may accept affidavit instead of oral evidence Election Petitions → Affidavits required Company Law Tribunals (NCLT/NCLAT) → Affidavits accepted Family Courts...
Read more

🏛️ Court Fee Refund after Settlement: Rajasthan High Court Clears the Air

In a notable judgment, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has upheld the right of litigants to seek a full refund of court fees when a matter is settled through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms even after a decree is passed and during execution proceedings . 📌 Case Snapshot Case Title : Harish Madhan v. Kshema Power & Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd. Citation : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13265/2025 Date of Judgment : 17th July 2025 Judge : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Monga ⚖️ Background Harish Madhan, the petitioner, filed a recovery suit in 2023, which was decreed ex-parte in his favour in February 2024. During execution proceedings, the parties settled the matter through conciliation , and the case was disposed of via the National Lok Adalat in December 2024. Relying on Section 65-B of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act, 1961, Harish sought a refund of the court fees paid. However, the trial court rejected the application, stating...
Read more

Bombay Court Ruling: Sending Obscene WhatsApp Messages Is a Serious Criminal Offence

Image
Date of Judgment : 18 February 2025 Court : Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai Case Title : Narsingh Bhujangrao Gude v. State of Maharashtra Sections Involved : Section 509 IPC (Insulting the modesty of a woman) Sections 67 & 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Electronic transmission of obscene material) Case in Brief  A female corporator in Mumbai received a barrage of inappropriate and obscene WhatsApp messages from an unknown number late at night during a public event in her constituency. The messages, containing sexually suggestive texts and images, deeply disturbed her. After informing her husband, she lodged a police complaint. Investigations revealed that the messages were sent from a number registered in the name of the accused, Narsingh Bhujangrao Gude. The trial court convicted him, and his appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court, which upheld the conviction and imprisonment. Legal Findings 1. Electronic Evidence Is Admissible If Properly Certi...
Read more