Decoding Section 66 of IT Act, 2000
Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000: Overview
Section 66 deals with computer-related offenses involving dishonesty or fraud. It is a penal provision that addresses wrongful acts committed using a computer, computer system, or network.
Text of Section 66 (simplified):
If any person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act referred to in Section 65 (which is about tampering with computer source documents) or any other computer-related offense, such person shall be punished with imprisonment up to 3 years, or with a fine which may extend to 5 lakh rupees, or both.
Key Elements of Section 66:
Actus Reus (Guilty Act): The commission of any wrongful act using a computer or computer network which leads to damage, destruction, or fraudulent manipulation.
Mens Rea (Guilty Mind): The act must be done dishonestly or fraudulently. This mental element distinguishes Section 66 from Section 65, which is a strict liability offense (no need to prove dishonesty/fraud).
Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years or a fine up to ₹5 lakh or both.
Examples of Offenses under Section 66:
Hacking into someone’s computer or account with fraudulent intentions.
Using a computer to commit fraud (e.g., forging electronic records).
Altering or destroying data dishonestly.
Detailed Explanation
1. Dishonestly or Fraudulently:
These are key words and usually mean the offender must have intention to cheat or cause wrongful gain or loss.
Dishonestly: Doing an act knowing it is wrong or without legal right.
Fraudulently: Acting with intent to deceive or cheat.
2. Difference from Section 65:
Section 65 penalizes tampering with computer source documents irrespective of intent.
Section 66 requires proof of dishonest or fraudulent intention.
3. Applicability:
Section 66 applies to all computer-related offenses that involve a dishonest or fraudulent act, such as:
Hacking and stealing sensitive information.
Identity theft through digital means.
Manipulating electronic records to deceive.
Unauthorized access leading to wrongful gain or loss.
Relevant Case Laws
1. State of Tamil Nadu vs. Suhas Katti (2004)
This was one of the first prominent cases where Section 66 was invoked.
The accused sent offensive messages through electronic mail.
The court interpreted Section 66 along with Section 66A (which was later struck down).
The case highlighted how electronic communication can be misused fraudulently or dishonestly.
2. Ajay Sharma vs. Union of India (2009)
The Delhi High Court analyzed the applicability of Sections 65, 66, and 66A.
The court held that Section 66 requires proof of dishonesty or fraud.
This case reinforced that mere unauthorized access without dishonest intent would not attract Section 66.
3. Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015)
Though mainly about Section 66A, the Supreme Court discussed the scope of IT Act offenses.
It reiterated that freedom of speech must be balanced with IT Act provisions.
The Court stressed that Sections like 66 should be applied carefully where there is clear dishonest or fraudulent intent.
Summary
Section 66 IT Act criminalizes acts involving computer systems done dishonestly or fraudulently.
It requires proof of intent to cheat or cause wrongful loss/gain.
The punishment is up to 3 years imprisonment, fine up to ₹5 lakh, or both.
The section covers hacking, electronic fraud, data manipulation, and identity theft.
Courts have emphasized the necessity to prove the mental element of dishonesty or fraud.
It acts as a key provision to combat cybercrime related to fraud.
RELATED Blog
0 comments