Skip to content

CS Professional · Banking and Insurance - Laws and Practice · Digital Banking

Ramesh knows that a Digital Signature Certificate has been revoked, yet he shares it with a vendor solely so that the vendor can verify a signature Ramesh created before the revocation. Under the Information Technology Act, 2000, what is the position?

Ramesh commits no offence. The Act prohibits making available a certificate known to be revoked or suspended, but excepts publication for verifying a signature created before the suspension or revocation. His purpose falls within that exception, so the penalty provision does not apply.

  1. AHe is liable to imprisonment up to two years because any sharing of a revoked certificate is punishable
  2. BHe commits no offence because sharing for verifying a signature created before revocation is exceptedCorrect
  3. CHe is liable only if the vendor suffers a loss
  4. DHe is liable to a fine of one crore rupees

Explanation

Section 73(1)(c) bars making available a certificate known to be revoked or suspended, but the section excepts publication for verifying a signature created before the suspension or revocation. Ramesh's purpose fits the exception, so no offence arises. The punishment of up to two years or fine up to one lakh applies only to a contravention.

Did you get it right without looking?

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

Practise Digital BankingFree diagnostic mock

More Digital Banking questions