Module 2 Assessment0 of 50 answered
📝 Final Assessment

Module 2: Cyber Offences

Substantive Cyber Criminal Law

📊 50 Questions⏱️ ~45 Min✅ 70% Pass🏆 Certificate
📋 Instructions
  • Covers all 5 parts: Architecture, IT Act, BNS, Frauds, Sexual/Corporate
  • One correct answer per question
  • 35/50 (70%) required to pass
  • No negative marking
Q1Part 2.1: Architecture
The doctrine "generalia specialibus non derogant" means:
Explanation
IT Act as special law prevails over BNS as general law for cyber-specific offences (Sharat Babu Digumarti case).
Q2Part 2.1: Architecture
Online fraud via fake app typically attracts:
Explanation
Online fraud is a hybrid offence — IT Act S.66D addresses technology element, BNS addresses dishonest inducement.
Q3Part 2.1: Architecture
Common police charging mistake in cyber cases:
Explanation
S.66A struck down by Shreya Singhal (2015). FIRs still cite this invalid section — file quashing petition.
Q4Part 2.1: Architecture
Case establishing IT Act's primacy over IPC/BNS:
Explanation
Sharat Babu Digumarti (2017) — IT Act as special law prevails over IPC/BNS for cyber offences.
Q5Part 2.1: Architecture
Scenario
Accused charged under both S.66D IT Act and S.318 BNS for same cheating.
Defence should argue:
Explanation
Article 20(2) — cannot punish twice for same offence. If S.66D applies, BNS cheating may be barred.
Q6Part 2.2: IT Act
Section 43 IT Act deals with:
Explanation
S.43 — civil compensation for unauthorized access. S.66 criminalizes these acts.
Q7Part 2.2: IT Act
Section 65 IT Act criminalizes:
Explanation
S.65 — tampering with computer source documents required by law.
Q8Part 2.2: IT Act
Section 66C IT Act punishes:
Explanation
S.66C — Identity Theft: Using another's electronic signature/password. 3 years + ₹1 lakh.
Q9Part 2.2: IT Act
Section 66D IT Act addresses:
Explanation
S.66D — Cheating by personation using computer. 3 years + ₹1 lakh.
Q10Part 2.2: IT Act
Section 66E IT Act deals with:
Explanation
S.66E — Violation of privacy: capturing/publishing private area images. 3 years + ₹2 lakh.
Q11Part 2.2: IT Act
Section 66F (Cyber Terrorism) max punishment:
Explanation
S.66F — Cyber Terrorism: Life imprisonment. Non-bailable.
Q12Part 2.2: IT Act
Section 67B specifically addresses:
Explanation
S.67B — CSAM. First: 5 years + ₹10 lakh. Subsequent: 7 years.
Q13Part 2.2: IT Act
Difference between S.67 and S.67A:
Explanation
S.67 — "obscene" (broader). S.67A — "sexually explicit" (5-7 years).
Q14Part 2.2: IT Act
Scenario
Hospital ransomware attack. Records encrypted, operations disrupted.
Applicable sections:
Explanation
Hospital ransomware: S.66 (hacking), S.66F (cyber terrorism if critical), S.308 (extortion).
Q15Part 2.2: IT Act
Section 66 IT Act is:
Explanation
S.66 — 3 years + ₹5 lakh. Bailable.
Q16Part 2.3: BNS
Online cheating under BNS:
Explanation
S.318 BNS — Cheating: dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
Q17Part 2.3: BNS
Criminal intimidation online under BNS:
Explanation
S.351 BNS — Criminal intimidation: threatening injury to person/reputation.
Q18Part 2.3: BNS
Online extortion (threatening to publish intimate images unless paid):
Explanation
S.308 BNS (Extortion) — Non-bailable, up to 7 years.
Q19Part 2.3: BNS
Impersonating government official online attracts:
Explanation
S.66D + S.204 BNS (impersonating public servant — 3 years).
Q20Part 2.3: BNS
Why police often prefer BNS over IT Act:
Explanation
Police more familiar with BNS; some offences like extortion are non-bailable with higher punishment.
c">C.S.351
Explanation
S.356 BNS — Defamation. Up to 2 years.
Q25Part 2.3: BNS
Scenario
Client charged under S.66D, S.318, S.319, S.336 BNS for same fraud.
Defence strategy:
Explanation
Challenge over-criminalisation, argue special law prevails, seek quashing under S.482/528.
Q26Part 2.4: Frauds
In UPI "collect request" fraud, victim loses money because:
Explanation
Entering PIN always authorizes outgoing payment. Fraudster sends collect disguised as incoming.
Q27Part 2.4: Frauds
In SIM swap, additional party to sue civilly:
Explanation
Telecom company liable for negligent KYC verification when issuing replacement SIM.
Q28Part 2.4: Frauds
"Digital arrest" in Indian law:
Explanation
"Digital arrest" has no legal basis. Scam using psychological manipulation.
Q29Part 2.4: Frauds
RBI 2017 circular: fraud reported within 3 days, customer not negligent:
Explanation
RBI circular: Zero liability if third-party breach, customer not negligent, reported within 3 days.
Q30Part 2.4: Frauds
"Golden hour" in cyber fraud:
Explanation
"Golden hour" = first hours when 1930 helpline can freeze funds before withdrawal.
Q31Part 2.4: Frauds
Fake trading app scam — most effective complaints:
Explanation
Multi-agency approach: NCRP for criminal, SEBI for regulatory, RBI for banking.
Q32Part 2.4: Frauds
National Cyber Crime Helpline:
Explanation
1930 — National Cyber Crime Helpline. Also: cybercrime.gov.in
Q33Part 2.4: Frauds
"Pig butchering" scam combines:
Explanation
"Pig butchering" = Romance + investment. Victim "fattened" then "slaughtered" financially.
Q34Part 2.4: Frauds
Mule account holder can be charged as:
Explanation
Mule accounts face charges. Defence: establish lack of mens rea, show victim was deceived.
Q35Part 2.4: Frauds
Crypto Ponzi schemes attract:
Explanation
PCPNMCS Act + S.66D + S.318 BNS + PMLA. Multi-statute approach.
Q36Part 2.5: Sexual/Corporate
IT Rules 2021: intimate image removal deadline:
Explanation
IT Rules 2021: 24 hours for intimate image removal.
Q37Part 2.5: Sexual/Corporate
Sexual deepfake sections:
Explanation
S.66C (identity) + S.67A (sexually explicit) + S.66E (privacy).
Q38Part 2.5: Sexual/Corporate
"Consent to capture ≠ consent to distribute" applies to:
Explanation
Revenge porn: consent to capture ≠ consent to distribute. Distribution is criminal.
Q39Part 2.5: Sexual/Corporate
Sextortion (money demand to not publish):
Explanation
S.308 BNS (Extortion) — non-bailable, up to 7 years.
Q40Part 2.5: Sexual/Corporate
If victim is minor, additional sections:
Explanation
S.67B (CSAM) + POCSO Act — enhanced penalties.
Q41Part 2.5: Sexual/Corporate
Section 72 IT Act criminalizes:
Explanation
S.72 — Breach of confidentiality. 2 years + ₹1 lakh.
Q42Part 2.5: Sexual/Corporate
Section 72A IT Act covers:
Explanation
S.72A — Disclosure in breach of contract. 3 years + ₹5 lakh.
Q43Part 2.5: Sexual/Corporate
Section 85 IT Act creates liability for:
Explanation
S.85 — Directors "in charge of and responsible for" business are personally liable.
Q44Part 2.5: Sexual/Corporate
S.85 proviso defence:
Explanation
S.85 proviso: (1) No knowledge OR (2) Exercised due diligence.
Q45Part 2.5: Sexual/Corporate
Highest cyber liability risk role under S.85:
Explanation
MD/CEO + CTO/CISO — presumed in charge of business and IT function.
Q46Part 2.5: Sexual/Corporate
Employee data theft sections:
Explanation
S.43 + S.66 (unauthorized access) + S.72A (breach of contract).
Q47Part 2.5: Sexual/Corporate
Corporate data breach — most effective approach:
Explanation
Multi-track: Criminal for pressure, civil for injunction/damages, regulatory. Criminal as leverage.
Q48Part 2.5: Sexual/Corporate
MeitY 2023 deepfake advisory — removal deadline:
Explanation
MeitY advisory: 36 hours. Non-compliance = loss of S.79 safe harbour.
Q49Part 2.5: Sexual/Corporate
Building due diligence defence requires:
Explanation
Due diligence needs evidence: policies, board minutes, audits, training records.
Q50Part 2.5: Sexual/Corporate
Scenario
CISO raised security concerns 6 months ago. Board rejected budget. Data breach occurred.
In S.85 proceedings:
Explanation
CISO who raised concerns may have due diligence defence. Board members who rejected budget may struggle.
🏆
0
out of 50 correct
0%
Part 2.1
0/5
Part 2.2
0/10
Part 2.3
0/10
Part 2.4
0/10
Part 2.5
0/15

🎉 Congratulations! You passed Module 2.

Download CertificateReview Module