BACK TO IT ACT
IT Act 2000AMENDED 2008
Section 66B
Punishment for Dishonestly Receiving Stolen Computer Resource or Communication Device
THE STATUTE
Original Text
Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen computer resource or communication device knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen computer resource or communication device, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh or with both.
Simplified
Section 66B is the digital equivalent of receiving stolen property under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — it targets the receiver rather than the original thief. 'Computer resource' is broadly defined under Section 2(k) of the IT Act to include computer, computer system, computer network, data, computer database, or software. 'Communication device' includes mobile phones, SIM cards, and any electronic device used for communication. The critical mental element is dishonesty combined with knowledge or reason to believe that the resource is stolen. A person who receives a stolen laptop genuinely believing it to be legitimately sold is not guilty — the prosecution must prove dishonest receipt. Common scenarios: purchasing mobile phones with tampered IMEI numbers from grey-market sellers; retaining database dumps that were obviously extracted without authorisation; handling SIM cards that are cloned or fraudulently obtained. Section 66B is cognizable, unlike Section 65, which means police can arrest without a magistrate's warrant — reflecting the legislature's view that the receiving of stolen digital goods is a more serious and operationally active offence. Section 66B complements Section 66 (hacking) by ensuring that the downstream beneficiary of cybercrime is also criminally liable, not just the perpetrator of the original intrusion.
Common Queries
Any computer resource (computer system, data, network, software) or communication device (mobile phone, SIM card) that has been taken or obtained without the owner's consent. This includes stolen laptops, cloned SIM cards, and databases extracted without authorisation.
Yes. The accused must have received the stolen resource 'knowing or having reason to believe' it was stolen. Genuine ignorance of the stolen nature is a defence — but a court will examine whether the circumstances should have put the accused on notice.
Potentially yes, if the buyer knew or had reason to believe the phone was stolen or had a tampered IMEI. Courts will consider the price paid, the circumstances of purchase, and any suspicious indicators.
Legal Evolution
Section 66B was inserted by the IT (Amendment) Act 2008 as part of a comprehensive expansion of cyber-specific criminal offences. Before 2008, prosecutors had to rely on IPC receiving-stolen-property provisions (Section 411 IPC, now BNS) which were not specifically calibrated for digital assets. The standalone provision makes clear that digital resources attract the same receiving-stolen-property liability as physical goods.
Key Amendments
Inserted by IT (Amendment) Act 2008 — no equivalent in original IT Act 2000.
Extends traditional stolen-property receiving offence to computer resources and communication devices.