Computer related offences
Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with computer related offences. If any person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both. The Act came into force on 17 Oct 2000.
1 [66. Computer related offences.-- If any person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,--
(a) the word "dishonestly" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 24 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
(b) the word "fraudulently" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 25 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]
Section 66, The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Ramesh Rajagopal vs Devi Polymers Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When allegations of forgery and fraud are made on the basis of website content that clearly identifies a company division's connection to its parent company through visible links and shared addresses, and when no fraudulent intent can be inferred, no deceptive transactions occurred, and no person was induced to part with property or enter contracts based on such representation, the criminal allegations do not constitute a prima facie offence under Sections 463, 468, or 471 IPC or Sections 65-66 IT Act 2000. Such criminal proceedings initiated as part of a private corporate dispute constitute abuse of court process and must be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in the interests of justice.
On this section: Computer-related fraud; court found no fraudulent intent or unauthorized access by company director
-
Mohd. Mubashir vs The State of Madya Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In bail matters involving pre-trial detention, the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused is a relevant and weighty consideration. When an accused has spent a substantial period in custody (such as approximately seven and a half months), coupled with the availability of reasonable bail conditions to ensure court appearance, courts should grant bail notwithstanding the nature or seriousness of the allegations, unless specific circumstances justify continued detention.
On this section: Cybercrime offence alleged against the petitioner; this provision typically relates to unauthorized computer access and data theft
-
Gagan Harsh Sharma v. State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-6.pdf 2018-10-26 (labelled Final Order, not an interim). WP 2018. IT Act ss.43 and 66 are not a substitute for a civil/commercial dispute over source code and company control; criminal process under 43/66 is not to be used to settle a private civil fight. Map it-act 43 and 66.
On this section: s.66 (computer-related offences, dishonest/fraudulent s.43 conduct) likewise cannot criminalise a private civil dispute over software and control of a company. Bombay HC Final Order, Binding (High Court).
-
Gangadhara Shastry vs State by Honnavara Police Station
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Proceedings against supplementary accused under Section 319 CrPC require more than prima facie case but short of conviction-level satisfaction. Mere professional advice by advocates or astrologers, family relationships, or general allegations of conspiracy without direct evidence of participation in the alleged extortion scheme do not constitute sufficient grounds to proceed against supplementary accused. Proceeding against such accused amounts to abuse of process of court and warrants quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. However, if during trial evidence surfaces against them meeting the Section 319 CrPC threshold, trial court may summon them.
On this section: Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication device - originally charged but not pursued
-
Arjun Himagiri vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the complainant has withdrawn her grievance, the parties have amicably settled their dispute, the prosecution has no serious objection, no public interest is involved, and no fruitful purpose would be served by proceeding with the case, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the charge sheet in the interest of justice and to secure the ends of justice.
On this section: Violation of privacy through publishing private images or information - one of the charges against the accused
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 66
What have the courts held on Section 66 of the Information Technology Act?
Ramesh Rajagopal vs Devi Polymers Pvt. LTD (19 Apr 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Computer-related fraud; court found no fraudulent intent or unauthorized access by company director. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2016 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IT Act 66, section 66 IT Act, section 66 of the Information Technology Act. People searching for it also type it act 66d and it act 66e punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ramesh Rajagopal vs Devi Polymers Pvt. LTD (19 Apr 2016).
What should I read with Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Indian Penal Code 24 ("Dishonestly"), Indian Penal Code 25 ("Fraudulently"), section 43 (Penalty and compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc), so none of them can safely be read on its own.
When did Section 66 of the Information Technology Act come into force?
Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, commonly called hacking, and cited as IT Act 66, came into force on 17 Oct 2000, having been enacted on 09 Jun 2000. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions1304 words
- 87. Power of Central Government to make rules877 words
- 43. Penalty and compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc506 words
- 46. Power to adjudicate370 words
- 89. Power of Controller to make regulations345 words
- 70B. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team to serve as national agency for incident response326 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.