Table of Contents
Introduction Section 66C and 67D of the IT Act Explained with Case Laws to the IT Act, 2000
The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) is India’s principal legislation governing electronic communication, data security, and cyber offences. It provides legal recognition to electronic transactions and aims to combat crimes occurring in cyberspace.
Importance of Cyber Laws in India
With increasing digital dependency, cybercrimes such as identity theft, online impersonation, and financial fraud have grown multifold. To tackle such offences, provisions like Section 66C and Section 67D play a critical role in ensuring accountability and legal recourse.
Overview of Section 66C – Identity Theft
Text of Section 66C
According to the Information Technology Act, 2000,
“Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly makes use of the electronic signature, password, or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years and a fine up to one lakh rupees.”
Elements of the Offence
To establish guilt under Section 66C, the prosecution must prove:
- Fraudulent or dishonest intention while using another person’s credentials.
- Use of electronic identity, such as password, signature, or biometric.
- Absence of lawful authorization to use the said digital identity.
Penalties and Punishment
- Imprisonment: Up to 3 years
- Fine: Up to ₹1 lakh
- Nature of offence: Cognizable, bailable, and compoundable.
Overview of Section 67D – Cheating by Personation Using Computer Resources
Definition and Scope
Section 67D of the IT Act states:
“Whoever, by means for any communication device or computer resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine up to one lakh rupees.”
It covers acts where an individual pretends to be someone else online to deceive, extract information, or commit fraud.
Illustrative Examples
- Creating a fake social media profile to extract money or sensitive data.
- Impersonating an employer in phishing emails.
- Posing as a government official on messaging apps to extort payments.
Key Differences Between Sections 66C and 67D
| Feature | Section 66C | Section 67D |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Offence | Misuse of another person’s identity | Cheating by impersonation |
| Intent Required | Fraudulent or dishonest use | Deceptive personation |
| Example | Using another’s password | Pretending to be another person online |
| Penalty | 3 years + ₹1 lakh fine | 3 years + ₹1 lakh fine |
Nature of Offence and Intent
Both sections are cyber offences requiring mens rea (criminal intent). Section 66C focuses on identity misuse, whereas Section 67D penalizes the act of cheating through impersonation.
Case Laws and Judicial Interpretations
1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004)
This was India’s first conviction under the IT Act, where the accused posted obscene content online to defame a woman. The court recognized the digital footprint as admissible evidence and set a precedent for cyber defamation cases.
2. Ritu Kohli Case (Delhi Cyber Cell, 2001)
A landmark case of cyberstalking and identity theft. The accused misused the victim’s identity on a chat platform, leading to harassment. It directly established the applicability of Section 66C for digital impersonation.
3. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (AIR 2015 SC 1523)
Although primarily about Section 66A, the Supreme Court’s judgment clarified the limits of free speech and intermediary liability, shaping future interpretations of Sections 66C and 67D within constitutional boundaries.
Case Study Example
Case Study:
A fraudster creates a fake Instagram profile using another person’s name, photo, and credentials to collect donations for a fictitious cause.
👉 This act amounts to identity theft under Section 66C and cheating by personation under Section 67D of the IT Act.
Victims can report such offences to the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (cybercrime.gov.in) or the local Cyber Cell.
Enforcement and Challenges
Role of Cyber Crime Investigation Cells
- Cyber Crime Units in each State (including Bihar) investigate offences under the IT Act.
- They coordinate with CERT-In and MeitY for forensic and data recovery support.
Evidentiary Issues in Digital Crimes
- Electronic evidence (emails, metadata, logs) must be collected per Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
- Data jurisdiction and cross-border investigations remain major challenges in prosecution.
Preventive Measures and Legal Remedies
- Enable two-factor authentication and secure passwords.
- Avoid sharing OTPs and personal data online.
- Verify official communications from banks or government entities.
- Report promptly on cybercrime.gov.in.
- Consult legal professionals for drafting complaints and preserving evidence.
For detailed guidance, see our post on Step-by-Step Guide: Filing a Cybercrime Complaint in India.
Conclusion – Strengthening India’s Cyber Law Framework
Sections 66C and 67D of the IT Act form the backbone of India’s cyber protection regime. As online frauds evolve, both individuals and law enforcement must stay vigilant. Legal awareness, timely complaint filing, and technological literacy are the keys to a safer digital India.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. What is Section 66C of the IT Act?
Section 66C deals with identity theft involving misuse of another person’s digital credentials or electronic signatures.
Q2. What punishment is prescribed under Section 66C?
Imprisonment up to 3 years and a fine up to ₹1 lakh.
Q3. What does Section 67D of the IT Act cover?
It punishes cheating by personation using computer resources or communication devices.
Q4. How are Sections 66C and 67D different?
Section 66C focuses on identity misuse, while Section 67D targets deceptive personation in digital space.
Q5. Can both sections apply in the same case?
Yes. When identity theft leads to impersonation-based cheating online, both sections can be invoked.
Q6. How can victims report cyber offences in India?
Complaints can be filed at https://cybercrime.gov.in or local cyber police stations.
Q7. Are offences under Section 66C bailable?
Yes, but they are cognizable and compoundable depending on case facts.
Q8. What evidence is needed to prove cyber identity theft?
Screenshots, digital device logs, and forensic reports are key evidence in such cases.
References
- Information Technology Act, 2000 – India Code
- Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)
- National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal
- Indian Kanoon – Relevant Judgments
Author Bio
About the Author – Advocate Tabish Ahmad
Advocate Tabish Ahmad (B.A. LL.B., LL.M., Diploma in Cyber Law – GLC Mumbai) is a Certified Cyber Law Practitioner and practising Advocate at the Patna High Court. He specializes in Cyber Crime, GST Litigation, and Tax Appeals, with extensive experience in representing clients before judicial and quasi-judicial forums.
He serves as President of the Cyber Lawyers Association and is a Member of the Advocates’ Association, Patna High Court. As a Mentor at the Indian Tax Academy and JurisCrack, he guides young lawyers and students in cyber and tax law practice.
Author of several books on Cyber Crimes, Taxation, and GST, Advocate Tabish Ahmad is recognized for his practical insights on digital law, data privacy, and cyber fraud defence.
