Section 65 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is the first offence in Chapter XI. It punishes a person who knowingly or intentionally conceals, destroys or alters computer source code, or causes another to do so, when the code is required to be kept or maintained by law for the time being in force. The punishment printed is imprisonment up to three years, or fine which may extend up to two lakh rupees, or both.
The offence needs (1) knowingly or intentionally (2) concealing, destroying or altering, or causing another to do so, (3) computer source code used for a computer, computer programme, computer system or computer network, (4) when the code is required to be kept or maintained by law for the time being in force. The printed punishment is imprisonment up to three years, or fine up to two lakh rupees, or both. The civil counterpart is section 43(j), which has no amount printed.
Source and scope
This article follows the consolidated text consulted (the Act as amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008). Later amendments and the current position of the section should be checked. This article describes the legal elements only. If you are accused under, or are the victim of, an alleged offence, our legal dispute resolution team can look at the facts against the text.
The text of section 65
"Whoever knowingly or intentionally conceals, destroys or alters or intentionally or knowingly causes another to conceal, destroy, or alter any computer source code used for a computer, computer programme, computer system or computer network, when the computer source code is required to be kept or maintained by law for the time being in force, shall be punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine which may extend up to two lakh rupees, or with both."
The elements
| Element | What the words say |
|---|---|
| Mental state | "Knowingly or intentionally" (and, for causing another, "intentionally or knowingly") |
| Act | Conceals, destroys or alters, or causes another to conceal, destroy or alter |
| Subject | Any computer source code used for a computer, computer programme, computer system or computer network |
| Condition | The code "is required to be kept or maintained by law for the time being in force" |
| Punishment | Imprisonment up to three years, or fine which may extend up to two lakh rupees, or both |
"Computer source code"
The Explanation says that "computer source code" means "the listing of programmes, computer commands, design and layout and programme analysis of computer resource in any form."
Why the "required by law" condition matters
The section does not protect all source code. It applies when a law requires the code to be kept or maintained. The text does not name any such law, and none is named here. A business should therefore identify whether any law that applies to it requires it to retain source code or similar records. Our post on copyright registration for software and computer programs discusses ownership of software under a different Act; ownership alone does not satisfy this condition.
The two ways of committing it
- Doing the act oneself: concealing, destroying or altering.
- Causing another to do it: the section covers a person who instructs or causes another to conceal, destroy or alter.
Both require the stated mental state.
Section 65 and section 43(j)
Section 43(j) lists, among the acts for which compensation is payable, stealing, concealing, destroying or altering, or causing any person to steal, conceal, destroy or alter, any computer source code used for a computer resource with an intention to cause damage. See our article on section 43: compensation for damage to a computer and unauthorised access.
| Feature | Section 43(j) | Section 65 |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Liability to pay damages by way of compensation | Offence punishable with imprisonment or fine or both |
| Mental state | "With an intention to cause damage" | "Knowingly or intentionally" |
| Source code | Used for a computer resource | Used for a computer, computer programme, computer system or computer network |
| Condition | Without permission of the owner or person in charge | Code required to be kept or maintained by law |
| Amount | None printed | Fine up to two lakh rupees; imprisonment up to three years |
The two sections use different words and conditions; each should be read on its own terms.
Related provisions as printed
The following sections of the Act apply to offences generally. They are explained here only as printed.
Section 77A (compounding of offences). "A Court of competent jurisdiction may compound offences, other than offences for which the punishment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding three years has been provided, under this Act." Two provisos bar compounding where the accused, by reason of previous conviction, is liable to enhanced punishment or a punishment of a different kind, and where the offence affects the socio economic conditions of the country or has been committed against a child below the age of 18 years or a woman. Sub-section (2) lets the accused apply to the Court where the offence is pending, and "sections 265-B and 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply". Readers should check the current procedural, penal or other law for the corresponding provision. Our article on compounding of offences and bailable offences explains this section.
Section 77B. Printed in the copy as: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the offence punishable with imprisonment of three years and above shall be cognizable and the offence punishable with imprisonment of three years shall be bailable." We quote it exactly and classify no offence beyond those words.
Section 78. "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), a police officer not below the rank of Inspector shall investigate any offence under this Act." See our article on sections 78 and 80: investigation, search and arrest by police.
Section 84B (abetment). Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by the Act for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence under the Act.
Section 84C (attempt). Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by the Act, or causes such an offence to be committed, and in such an attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.
Section 85 (offences by companies). Where the person committing a contravention is a company, every person in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of its business at the time, as well as the company, is guilty and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly, with a proviso that a person who proves the contravention took place without his knowledge, or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent it, is not liable. Sub-section (2) deems a director, manager, secretary or other officer guilty where the contravention took place with his consent or connivance or is attributable to his neglect. Our article on section 85: offences by companies explains it.
A worked example
Statute-bound Medical Software Private Limited is required by a law applicable to it to keep the source code of its billing software for a stated period. A senior developer, Tarun, knowingly deletes the archived code and tells a junior colleague to delete the backup copy. Tarun's deletion is destruction of source code that is required to be kept by law, done knowingly, and his instruction to the junior colleague is causing another to destroy it; both fall within the words of section 65. The printed punishment is imprisonment up to three years, or fine up to two lakh rupees, or both. If the code was not required by any law to be kept, the "required by law" condition would not be met, though section 43(j) may still be relevant for compensation. The company may also face section 85 questions about those in charge. Which court, which investigation steps and which bail position apply are matters for the procedural law, which readers should check for the current position.
Need help with a section 65 matter?
Whether you have been accused or need to safeguard records that the law requires you to keep, the first step is to identify which law requires retention and what was done. Please speak to our legal dispute resolution team and bring the relevant records and communications.
Key takeaways
- Section 65 needs knowledge or intention, an act of concealing, destroying or altering (or causing another to), source code, and a legal requirement to keep or maintain it.
- Printed punishment: imprisonment up to three years, or fine up to two lakh rupees, or both.
- Section 43(j) is the civil counterpart and prints no amount.
- Sections 77A, 77B, 78, 84B, 84C and 85 apply as printed; check the current procedural law.
- The section does not name the laws that require source code to be kept.
Read next
- Section 66: computer-related offences
- Section 43: compensation for damage to a computer and unauthorised access
- Sections 77A and 77B: compounding of offences and bailable offences
- Cyber law: Information Technology Act 2000, offences, penalties and adjudication
Disclaimer: Based on a consolidated copy of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, on the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 as originally notified on 25 February 2021 and on the CERT-In Directions of 28 April 2022, read with the amendments made to the Act by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 and by section 44 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, as consulted on 2 October 2026. Commencement notifications, other amendments, rules, directions and the current position of each provision are not covered and should be checked. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.