Section 66D – Cheating by Personation using Computer Resource

Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, cyber law:

Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource, cheats by personation shall be punished.

Punishment

Imprisonment up to 3 years, and Fine up to ₹1 lakh

Ingredients of the Offence

To prove Section 66D, prosecution must show:

Use of computer resource/communication device

        +

Personation (pretending to be someone else)

        +

Cheating (dishonest inducement)


All three must exist together.

Meaning of Key Terms

1. Personation

Pretending to be another person (real or fictitious).

2. Cheating

As defined under IPC Section 415 / BNS cheating provisions:

deception

dishonest inducement

wrongful gain or loss

3. Computer Resource Includes:

mobile

internet

email

social media

websites

digital platforms

Common Examples

✔ Online banking fraud

✔ Fake customer care calls

✔ OTP scams

✔ Fake job offers

✔ Fake social media profiles asking money

✔ Phishing emails

Example: Pretending to be a bank officer and asking for OTP → 66D


Relationship with Other IT Act Sections

Section Offence

66 Hacking

66C Identity theft

66D Cheating by impersonation

67 Obscenity

Difference: 66C vs 66D

66C → Stealing credentials

66D → Using those credentials to cheat

Often charged together.

Case Law Position

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

While striking down 66A, the Supreme Court clarified:

Genuine cyber crimes like cheating, fraud, impersonation (66C/66D) remain valid and punishable. This confirms constitutionality of 66D.

Trial Court Cyber Fraud Cases

Courts routinely convict accused for:

phishing scams

SIM swap fraud

online impersonation

Recognising 66D as specific cyber cheating provision.


Comparison with IPC / BNS Law Provision

IPC Section 419 – Cheating by personation

BNS Section 318 – Cheating by personation

IT Act Section 66D – Digital version

66D is cyber-specific form of 419 IPC.


Practical Problems

Anonymous offenders

Cross-border fraud

Cryptocurrency payments

Low digital literacy

Evidence collection issues


Conclusion

Section 66D criminalises online cheating through impersonation and serves as a vital tool against modern cyber frauds such as phishing, OTP scams, and digital personation.





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