Section 66C 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 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 punishes a person who fraudulently or dishonestly makes use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person. The printed punishment is imprisonment of either description up to three years, and the offender is also liable to fine up to one lakh rupees. This article follows the consolidated text consulted (the Act as amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008); later amendments and the current position should be checked.
Section 66C applies to whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly, makes use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person. The printed punishment is imprisonment of either description up to three years and liability to fine up to rupees one lakh. The section prints "and", not "or", between the two, which differs from the wording of section 66B.
What section 66C says
The copy prints: "Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine with may extend to rupees one lakh."
Two printing slips appear in the text: "make use" where the grammar calls for "makes use", and "fine with may extend" where the sense is "fine which may extend". We flag them and do not correct the text. The meaning of the section is not in doubt from either slip.
The section has five working elements:
- Use. The verb is "make use of". The section does not say the use must succeed in anything or cause a loss.
- Of an identifying item. Three kinds are named: an electronic signature, a password, or "any other unique identification feature".
- Of any other person. The item must belong to someone else.
- Fraudulently or dishonestly. Either state of mind is enough ("or").
- Punishment. Imprisonment of either description up to three years, and liability to fine.
The terms involved
"Electronic signature" is defined in section 2 of the Act, and our article on section 2 of the IT Act (signatures and certifying authorities) explains the definition. For how an electronic signature is recognised in law, see our explanation of section 5 on electronic signatures. The words "password" and "unique identification feature" are not defined in section 66C, and the copy gives no list of what counts as a unique identification feature. The section is silent on that point, so a reader should not assume a list.
Section 66 carries an Explanation that gives "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" meanings by reference to the Indian Penal Code, but that Explanation applies "for the purposes of this section", meaning section 66. Section 66C has no Explanation of its own.
If your business issues logins, authorises staff to sign electronically or holds digital certificates for directors, a legal dispute resolution review of who may use which credential, and what a misuse would look like on record, is a sensible precaution.
Punishment as printed
| Element | Printed text |
|---|---|
| Imprisonment | "of either description for a term which may extend to three years" |
| Fine | "shall also be liable to fine with may extend to rupees one lakh" |
| Link between them | "and" (imprisonment, and also liable to fine) |
Compare section 66B, where imprisonment and fine are joined by "or with both". The word "also" in section 66C is the difference to note. The section prints maximums ("may extend") and no minimum.
The general provisions that surround it
These sections apply across the offences of Chapter XI and are stated here as printed.
- Section 77A. 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", with two provisos (previous conviction; socio economic conditions, a child below the age of 18 years or a woman). Sub-section (2) refers to "sections 265-B and 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)".
- Section 77B. "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." This is quoted exactly; the article classifies nothing beyond those words.
- Section 78. A police officer not below the rank of shall investigate any offence under the Act.
- Section 84B. Abetment: punishment "provided for the offence under this Act" if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment and no express provision is made.
- Section 84C. Attempt: imprisonment up to "one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence", or fine as provided, or both, where no express provision is made.
- Section 85. Offences by companies: persons in charge of the company's business and the company itself; a proviso for contravention without knowledge or with due diligence; sub-section (2) for consent, connivance or neglect.
Our articles on sections 77A and 77B and section 85 explain them in full. The copy refers to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; check the current procedural law for the corresponding provisions.
A worked example
Karan Mehra, an invented director of Lakshya Components Private Limited, leaves his company laptop logged in to the filing portal with a saved password. An office assistant, Pooja, uses that saved login to file a document in Karan's name, without his knowledge and to obtain a favourable entry for a friend.
Reading section 66C on those facts: the password and the identity are those of "any other person" (Karan). The question is whether Pooja made use of them fraudulently or dishonestly. Whether the filing hurt anyone is not an element the section states; the section turns on the use and the state of mind. The company, for its part, should look at section 85 and at how it controls shared devices.
Need help with an identity misuse issue?
If credentials or a digital signature of your company or a director have been used by someone else, or you face a complaint about use of another person's login, we can help assess the position under sections 66C and 85 and plan the response. See our legal dispute resolution service.
Key takeaways
- Section 66C covers fraudulent or dishonest use of another person's electronic signature, password or unique identification feature.
- Printed punishment: imprisonment of either description up to three years and also liability to fine up to rupees one lakh.
- The copy has two slips in the section ("make use", "fine with may extend"); they are flagged, not corrected.
- Sections 77A, 77B, 78, 84B, 84C and 85 apply as printed; check the current procedural law for the Code references.
Read next
- Section 66B of the Information Technology Act, 2000: dishonestly receiving a stolen computer resource
- Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000: cheating by personation
- Section 5 of the Information Technology Act, 2000: legal recognition of electronic signatures
- Digital Signature Certificate (DSC): how to get, renew and use
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.