Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalises publishing, transmitting, or causing the publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form. The prohibition applies to material that is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, or tends to deprave and corrupt likely readers, viewers, or listeners. It prescribes imprisonment and fine for a first conviction, with enhanced penalties for repeat convictions.

Section 66 criminalises conduct where a person dishonestly or fraudulently commits any act covered by section 43. The offence is punishable by imprisonment, fine, or both. The terms "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" carry the meanings assigned under the Indian Penal Code.

Knowingly or intentionally concealing, destroying, altering, or causing alteration of computer source code required by law to be maintained constitutes an offence. The prohibition covers source code used for a computer, computer programme, computer system, or computer network. Computer source code includes programme listings, computer commands, design and layout, and programme analysis of a computer resource. The offence is punishable with imprisonment, fine, or both.

Unpaid penalty or compensation under the Information Technology Act, 2000 is recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. The relevant licence or electronic signature certificate remains suspended until payment of the penalty.

Section 63 permits compounding of contraventions before or after adjudication proceedings, subject to conditions and a sum not exceeding the maximum imposable penalty. Compounding is barred for the same or similar contravention committed within three years of an earlier compounded contravention, while a later contravention is treated as a first contravention. Once compounded, no proceeding or further proceeding may continue for that contravention.

An aggrieved person may appeal a decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to the High Court within sixty days of its communication, on a question of fact or law arising from the order. Where sufficient cause prevented timely filing, the High Court may permit filing during a further period not exceeding sixty days.

Section 61 bars civil courts from entertaining suits or proceedings concerning matters that an adjudicating officer or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine under the statutory framework. It also prohibits courts or other authorities from granting injunctions against action taken, or proposed to be taken, pursuant to powers conferred under that framework.

Limitation for appeals made to the Appellate Tribunal is governed, as far as may be, by the Limitation Act, 1963. Its applicable provisions apply to the Tribunal's appellate process insofar as they can operate in relation to an appeal before the Tribunal.

Right to legal representation before the Appellate Tribunal permits an appellant to appear personally or authorise one or more legal practitioners or officers to present the appellant's case. The provision applies to both individual and institutional appellants.

The Appellate Tribunal is guided by natural justice rather than the procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure and may regulate its own procedure and sittings, subject to the governing Act and rules. It has civil-court powers to compel attendance, obtain documents or electronic records, receive affidavit evidence, issue commissions, review decisions, and dispose of applications by default or ex parte. Its proceedings have judicial-proceeding status and the Tribunal receives civil-court treatment for specified procedural-criminal purposes.

Persons aggrieved by orders of the Controller or an adjudicating officer may appeal to the competent Appellate Tribunal, except where an adjudicating officer's order was made with the parties' consent. Appeals require prescribed form and fee, must ordinarily be filed within forty-five days of receipt of the order, and may be admitted late on sufficient cause. Following a hearing, the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the order.

Section 56 concerning staff of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal was omitted, removing the statutory framework for Tribunal personnel. Before omission, the Central Government was required to provide officers and employees as considered fit. Their functions were subject to the general superintendence of the Presiding Officer, while salaries, allowances, and other service conditions were to be prescribed by the Central Government.

Central Government orders appointing the Chairperson or a Member of an Appellate Tribunal cannot be challenged. Acts and proceedings before an Appellate Tribunal cannot be questioned merely because of a defect in the tribunal's constitution, preserving the validity and continuity of appellate proceedings.

Section 54 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, concerning resignation and removal in relation to the Appellate Tribunal, stands omitted. It contains no continuing substantive rules, procedure, eligibility condition, removal mechanism, or consequence concerning resignation or removal. The provision is represented only by an omission marker and has no operative text in its present form.

Section 53, dealing with filling vacancies in the Appellate Tribunal, is omitted from the Information Technology Act, 2000. No vacancy-filling procedure, eligibility criterion, appointment mechanism, consequential arrangement, or separate replacement mechanism is set out within this provision. The legal effect is confined to removal of the former statutory provision governing Appellate Tribunal vacancies.

Section 52, concerning salary, allowances and other service conditions of the Appellate Tribunal Chairperson and Members, is omitted. No operative provision remains concerning remuneration, allowances, or service conditions for those office-holders, and no governing rule, condition, or procedure is specified under this heading in relation to the stated employment terms.

Section 51 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, concerning the term of office and conditions of service of the Chairperson and Members of the Appellate Tribunal, stands omitted.

Section 50 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 stands omitted with effect from 26 May 2017, leaving no statutory qualifications in that provision for appointment of the Chairperson and Members of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal. Previously, the Chairperson required High Court judicial eligibility, while Members required specified professional expertise and senior government-service experience. Judicial Members required senior Indian Legal Service experience.

Composition of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal under section 49 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was omitted with effect from 26 May 2017 through the Finance Act, 2017. Before omission, the Tribunal consisted of one person, described as its Presiding Officer, appointed by the Central Government through notification.

Section 48 designates the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal as the Appellate Tribunal for purposes of the Information Technology Act, 2000, from commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017. The Tribunal exercises the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred under that framework. Its jurisdiction is exercised only in relation to matters and places specified through Central Government notification.