Receiving a Stolen Computer Resource, and Identity Theft

In one line

Section 66B punishes receiving a stolen device and section 66C punishes using another person's password or unique identification feature, and each has a counterpart in the general criminal law which a prosecutor may prefer.

Section 66B: receiving a stolen computer resource

66B. Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen computer resource or communication device, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be a 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 one lakh rupees or with both.

Four elements.

Receives or retains. Retention is enough, so a person who lawfully came by a device and keeps it after learning it is stolen commits the offence.

A stolen computer resource or communication device. "Computer resource" is defined in section 2(1)(k) as a computer, computer system, computer network, data, computer database or software, and "communication device" in section 2(1)(ha) as a cell phone, personal digital assistance or any other device used to communicate, send or transmit text, video, audio or image. So the section reaches stolen data, not merely stolen hardware, which is its principal utility.

"Stolen" is not defined in this Act. The natural source is section 317(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: property whose possession has been transferred by theft, extortion, robbery or cheating, or which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is stolen property, and it ceases to be stolen if it comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to it. Applied to data that definition is awkward, since data can be copied without any transfer of possession, and the point is undecided.

The mental element is double: dishonestly, which imports the intention of causing wrongful gain or loss, and knowing or having reason to believe the thing is stolen. "Reason to believe" is an objective standard and is lower than knowledge.

Section 66B against section 317 of the Sanhita

So the special provision adds one thing, the express inclusion of data and software, and takes away the aggravated forms. A prosecutor dealing with a person who habitually deals in stolen phones would use section 317(4), which carries life, and not section 66B, which carries three years.