Weighing your request
Weighing your request
Quick Answer
The Information Technology Act 2000 (as amended by the IT Amendment Act 2008) governs cybercrime in India. Section 66 covers offences such as hacking with intent to damage (Section 66B — receiving stolen computer resources, Section 66C — identity theft, Section 66D — cheating by impersonation, Section 66E — privacy violation, Section 66F — cyber terrorism). The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional for vagueness and overbreadth. Sections 67-67B address obscenity and child pornography online.
Statutory reference
Information Technology Act 2000
The provisions that matter in everyday cyber-fraud practice are Section 66C (identity theft — using someone's password, OTP, or electronic signature) and Section 66D (cheating by personation using a computer resource — the fake-officer video call, the phishing link, the UPI fraud), usually charged alongside cheating under Section 318 BNS. Speed decides recovery: report within hours on the 1930 cyber helpline or cybercrime.gov.in and the system can freeze the money mid-hop between mule accounts; wait a week and the trail is dry. The complaint route runs cyber cell → FIR → bank lien on the frozen amounts → magistrate-supervised release back to the victim. For the accused side, these offences are bailable in most configurations, and the defence work is largely forensic — device seizure memos, IP logs, and the chain of custody of electronic evidence.
Worked example
A Noida professional clicks a courier-notification link and loses ₹3.8 lakh through three instant UPI debits. She calls 1930 within the hour and files on cybercrime.gov.in the same evening; the freeze request catches ₹2.6 lakh sitting in two mule accounts before it moves again. The cyber cell registers an FIR under Sections 66C/66D IT Act and Section 318 BNS, and three months later the magistrate orders the frozen amounts released to her against indemnity. The uncaught ₹1.2 lakh had left the banking system within forty minutes of the fraud — the case was won and lost in the first hour, not in court.
Related practice areas
Section 66 IT Act 2000 criminalises computer-related offences (hacking, identity theft, cyberstalking). Section 66A was struck down in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) for unconstitutional vagueness.
IT Act 2000 — Sections 66 and 66A is governed by Information Technology Act 2000. The Information Technology Act 2000 (as amended by the IT Amendment Act 2008) governs cybercrime in India. Section 66 covers offences such as hacking with intent to damage (Section 66B — receiving stolen computer resources, Section 66C — identity theft, Section 66D — cheating by impersonation, Section 66E — privacy violation, Section 66F — cyber terrorism). The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional for vagueness and overbreadth. Sections 67-67B address obscenity and child pornography online.
IT Act 2000 — Sections 66 and 66A falls under Cyber Law, Criminal Law. NyaySevak matches you with a Bar-Council-verified advocate in the relevant practice area — your first step is a free case assessment with no obligation.
Definitions describe the framework — your case lives in its facts. Talk to a Bar-Council-verified advocate. Case assessment is free and comes with no obligation; callback usually within 24 hours.