Skip to content

CS Professional · Internal and Forensic Audit · Cyber Forensics

An audit team at a Mumbai firm is advising on the treatment of an accused charged under Section 66F. Applying Sections 77A and 77B of the IT Act, 2000, which conclusion is correct?

Section 66F cannot be compounded because Section 77A excludes offences punishable with life imprisonment or a term exceeding three years. It is also cognizable under Section 77B, since the punishment is three years and above. Only offences punishable with exactly three years are bailable.

  1. AThe offence can be compounded by the court on application by the accused
  2. BThe offence cannot be compounded because it carries punishment up to imprisonment for life, and it is cognizable because the punishment is three years and aboveCorrect
  3. CThe offence is bailable because it carries imprisonment of three years
  4. DThe offence can be compounded only if the accused has no previous conviction

Explanation

Section 77A excludes from compounding offences punishable with life imprisonment or a term exceeding three years; Section 66F carries up to life. Section 77B makes offences punishable with three years and above cognizable, and only those punishable with exactly three years bailable. So 66F is non-compoundable and cognizable. The previous-conviction proviso is an additional bar, not the sole one.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Cyber Forensics shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Cyber ForensicsFree diagnostic mock

More Cyber Forensics questions