Section 6. Offence and penalty
(1) Whoever possesses any 1[wireless telegraphy apparatus, other than a wireless transmitter,] in contravention of the provisions of section 3 shall be punished, in the case of the first offence, with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, and, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees.
2[(1A) Whoever possesses any wireless transmitter in contravention of the provisions of section 3 shall be be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.]
(2) For the purposes of this section a Court may presume that a person possesses wireless telegraphy apparatus if such apparatus is under his ostensible charge, or is located in any premises or place over which he has effective control.
(3) If in the trial of an offence under this section the accused is convicted the Court shall decide whether any apparatus in respect of which an offence has been committed should be confiscated, and, if it so decides, may order confiscation accordingly.
How courts have applied section 6
- Section 6 offences are quashed where the complaint lacks specific allegations of possessing or using unlicensed wireless equipment.1,2
- Bail under Section 6 charges is often granted on parity with co-accused, especially without criminal history.3,4,5,6
- Recovery of wireless instruments from a rented house without the applicant or independent witness present weakens the prosecution's case for bail.7,8
- Section 6(1A) survived the repeal of the 1949 Amendment Act via Section 6A of the General Clauses Act, 1897.9
- Seriousness involving national security can defeat pre-arrest bail for Section 6 offences.10
- Quashing of Section 6 does not prevent investigation into IPC cheating/fraud charges.1,2
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements here show Section 6 mostly arising in bail applications and quashing petitions, where courts did not interpret the section's elements but decided on parity, weak evidence, or absence of specific allegations. Where bail was opposed on seriousness, courts differed: one denied pre-arrest bail for illegal international call routing, citing national security, while another granted bail for similar telecom/SIM box allegations, finding no tampering risk after searches. Several Allahabad orders granted bail on parity with co-accused, noting no criminal history and prolonged custody, while one denied for want of prosecution.3,11,12,4,5,6,10,13
In quashing proceedings, Telangana courts repeatedly held that Section 6 requires averments of possessing or using unlicensed wireless equipment; absent such allegations, the offence was quashed, while IPC cheating/fraud charges survived. One petition's relief was limited to exempting accused No.3 from personal appearance. A Supreme Court judgement upheld Section 6(1A)'s validity after the 1949 Amendment Act's repeal, applying Section 6A of the General Clauses Act to save the amendment. Bail was also allowed where recovery of instruments from a rented house was not before the applicant or an independent witness, considered prima facie weak evidence despite criminal history.1,2,14,9,7,8
Some judgements involved Section 6 alongside other statutes without discussing its specific terms, treated as part of composite charges. The recurring pattern is that courts granted bail on parity or weak evidence, and quashed only when specific wireless equipment allegations were missing. No headnote addresses section 6(2)'s presumption or section 6(3)'s confiscation directly.15,16,12,17,4,1,6,18,9,10
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 6
State of Gujarat v. Anwar Osman Sumbhaniya, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1359-1361 of 2007 (Supreme Court of India, 27-02-2019, A.M. Khanwilkar J. for the bench): prior sanctions under s.20-A(2) TADA (Exh.84 by DGP A.K. Tandon; Exh.57 by IGP A.K.
DismissedOpenThe Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 6(1A) of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, remained valid. The Court ruled that although the amending Act of 1949 was repealed in 1952, section 6A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, saved the amendment inserted into the principal Act, as the word…
DismissedOpenIn an anticipated bail application under Section 482 CrPC (BNS 2023), the applicant challenged his implication in a crime regarding illegal diversion of international calls.
DisposedOpenCriminal revision allowed — attachment of immovable property under Section 107(2)/(4) B.N.S.S. — ex-parte order dated 16.03.2026 passed by CJM, Court No. 17, Deoria in Misc. Case No.
Bail granted on parity — Mohd. Arif v. State of U.P., CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32559 of 2025, decided September 22, 2025 by Krishan Pahal, J., High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Offences: B.N.S. Sections 3(5), 318(4), 338, 336(2), 340(2); Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act Sections 3, 6;
Junaid vs State of U.P.; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25938 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Samit Gopal, J.; decided September 25, 2025; bail application dismissed for want of prosecution; no appearance by applicant's counsel; Section 483 BNSS; BNS Ss. 318(4), 61(2), 111(4)(5);
Show 6 more
High Court of Delhi (coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma; judgment authored by Justice Amit Sharma), CRL.A. 439/2024, reserved 24.01.2025, pronounced 18.02.2025 — Appeal under Section 21(4) NIA Act by Zahoor Ahmad Peer against dismissal (order dt.
Petitioner sought quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.11669 of 2021 for offences under the IT Act, Telegraph Act, Wireless Telegraphy Act and Section 420 IPC; prayer restricted to dispensing with personal appearance.
DisposedOpenBail allowed on parity with co-accused; petitioner Md. Nafees Iqbal @ Nafiz Iqbal, foreign national with valid passport, visa expired in custody, undertaking to revive visa; Baduria PS Case 188/2023 dated 10/4/2023;
AllowedOpenBail granted on parity — Applicant Mirza Asad sought bail in Case Crime No. 3 of 2023, Police Station A.T.S./Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Sections 3 & 6 Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, Sections 4, 20, 21, 25 Indian Telegraphy Act and Sections 66-A, 66-D Information…
AllowedOpenThe High Court of Telangana partially allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR proceedings. The court quashed charges under Sections 66-C, 66-D of the IT Act, and the Telegraph Acts due to lack of substantive allegations, but permitted the investigation to continue regarding offences under Sections 417,…
Partly allowedOpenGrave Criminal petition filed to quash FIR 39/2024 for cheating and cyber offenses. The High Court quashed proceedings against Accused No. 5 (Petitioner) for specific IT and Telecom Act offenses due to lack of averments on identity theft and license possession, while permitting investigation to continue for IPC…
Partly allowedOpen
Criminal revision allowed — attachment of immovable property under Section 107(2)/(4) B.N.S.S. — ex-parte order dated 16.03.2026 passed by CJM, Court No. 17, Deoria in Misc. Case No.
Bail granted on parity — Mohd. Arif v. State of U.P., CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32559 of 2025, decided September 22, 2025 by Krishan Pahal, J., High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Offences: B.N.S. Sections 3(5), 318(4), 338, 336(2), 340(2); Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act Sections 3, 6;
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of operating illegal telecom setups and using SIM boxes, noting they were first-time offenders and no evidence tampering was likely. The court imposed strict conditions including weekly police reporting.
AllowedOpenNazim Nasim Khan @ Naazim Patel Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.
Outcome: AllowedIn this bail application, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) allowed the release of the applicant on bail, relying on the principle of parity with co-accused who were previously granted bail in similar FIR No. 3 of 2023 for cheating and forgery offences.
AllowedOpenApplication for bail entertained. Court found evidence linking applicant to offence based on recovery of electronic instruments from his rented house to be weak as recovery was not in his presence. Granted bail with conditions and sureties.
AllowedOpenThis bail application was disposed of by the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) which enlarged the applicant on bail. The court noted prima facie weak evidence linking the accused to the offence due to the absence of witnesses during recovery and granted bail subject to conditions.
AllowedOpen
Show 4 more
Calcutta High Court; C. R. M. (DB) 990 of 2024; bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed 15.03.2024; Baduria Police Station Case No.188 of 2023 dated 10.04.2023; G.R. Case No.1347 of 2023; Sections 120B/419/420 IPC; Sections 4/20/25 Indian Telegraph Act; Section 3/6 Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act; petitioner Md.
WithdrawnOpenAccused sought quashing of a split-up criminal case after co-accused were acquitted. The High Court held that the unchallenged acquittal destroyed the substratum of the prosecution case and quashed all pending proceedings against the petitioner.
AllowedOpenThe High Court granted bail to an accused allegedly implicated in running an illegal telephone exchange. The court accepted that the allegations are triable by a Magistrate and the applicant could be secured by conditions, allowing his release on personal bond with sureties.
AllowedOpenThe High Court of Kerala disposed of an application for anticipatory bail. The court denied the relief, noting that serious allegations involving supply of equipment for a parallel telephone exchange attracted the relevant acts and could adversely affect investigation.
DismissedOpen