Skip to content

CS Professional · Internal and Forensic Audit · Cyber Forensics

Meena, an IT consultant, deliberately supplies login credentials to a group that then commits cyber terrorism, and the act is committed in consequence of her aid. Under the IT Act, 2000, with no express provision for punishing such abetment, how is she punished?

Meena is punished with the punishment provided for the offence under the Act. Section 84B treats an abettor, whose aid leads to the offence being committed and for whom the Act has no express provision, as liable to the full punishment for the offence abetted.

  1. AWith the punishment provided for the offence under the Act, as the act abetted was committed in consequence of the abetmentCorrect
  2. BOnly with a fine
  3. CWith half the punishment for the offence
  4. DShe is not liable because she did not access the system herself

Explanation

Section 84B provides that whoever abets an offence is, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment and no express provision exists, punished with the punishment provided for the offence. Aid that leads to the act is within the Explanation. Hence she faces the same punishment, not a reduced 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