Section 66C – Punishment for Identity Theft, IT ACT,2000

Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly makes use of:

electronic signature, password any other unique identification feature of any other person shall be punished.

Punishment

Imprisonment up to 3 years, and

Fine up to ₹1 lakh

Essential Ingredients

Use of another person’s

electronic identity

        +

Fraudulent or dishonest intention

        +

Without authorisation


Mere access is not enough mens rea is compulsory.


What Counts as Identity Theft?

Using someone’s:

email ID / password

OTP

digital signature

Aadhaar-linked credentials

social media account

banking login details

With intent to cheat, impersonate, or cause wrongful loss.


Cyber law Link with Criminal Law

Section 66C Identity theft 

— IPC 419 / BNS Section 318

— Forgery & fraud provisions

Identity Theft = Taking the ID

Impersonation = Becoming the person


Case Law

R. v. Anil Kumar Neotia (illustrative cyber fraud cases)

Courts have held that unauthorised use of digital credentials with intent to deceive attracts Section 66C.

(Most 66C cases are trial-level cyber fraud cases; SC principles are applied from cheating & fraud jurisprudence.)


Difference: Section 66C vs 66D

66C Identity theft

66D Cheating by personation using computer resources

66C = stealing identity

66D = using identity to cheat

Often applied together.

Examples 

Using someone’s Aadhaar OTP to open a bank account.

Hacking email and resetting passwords.

Fake social media profiles using real person’s photos.

SIM swap fraud

Common Problems in Enforcement

Difficulty in tracing cyber offenders

Cross-border cybercrime

Low digital awareness

Evidence preservation issues

Conclusion

Section 66C addresses the growing menace of identity theft in the digital age by criminalising dishonest use of electronic credentials, thereby protecting privacy, trust, and cyber security.

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