Every Sinner Has A Future, Criminal Justice System Must Hate Crime Not Criminal: Karnataka High Court Modifies Sentence Of Two Convicted For Duplicating ATM Cards
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, Single Bench of Justice V. Srishananda, partly allowed a criminal revision petition filed by two men convicted for fraudulently duplicating ATM cards belonging to three victims and withdrawing money from their accounts, while also being found guilty of theft under common intention. Upholding the conviction on all charges, the court modified the sentence by treating the 41-day custody already undergone as the period of imprisonment and substituting the remaining jail term with an enhanced fine of Rs. 2,00,000 each, a portion of which was directed to be paid as compensation to the affected victims.
The petitioners, who were arrayed as accused, were convicted by the Trial Court for offences punishable under Section 66(c) of the Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008 and Section 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to pay fines and to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and two years respectively. The conviction was confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
In the revision petition, the petitioners contended that the judgments of the courts below were contrary to law and evidence. They argued that no test identification parade was conducted, no bank statements were produced to establish unauthorised withdrawals, and that the recovery witnesses had turned hostile. It was further contended that their names did not appear in the complaint and that the sentence imposed was harsh.
The State opposed the petition, contending that the petitioners had duplicated ATM cards of the complainants and withdrawn money from their accounts using technological means. The prosecution relied on material collected during investigation to establish duplication of ATM cards and withdrawal of funds.
The Court recorded that, “On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the conviction order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs no interference inasmuch as there are sufficient materials on record which would conclusively establish that the petitioners did indulge in duplicating the ATM cards belonging to P.W.1, 5 and 6 and thereafter, drawn the money from their respective accounts through the aid of such duplicated ATM cards.”
It further stated, “They misused the technology to their advantage and stole the passwords of the accounts of P.W.1, 5 and 6 and withdrew the money.”
With regard to the investigation, the Court observed, “Investigation Officer has collected sufficient material which has been discussed specifically in paragraph Nos.13 to 17 of the judgment of the Trial Court.”
On reappreciation of evidence, the Court recorded, “Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court on reappreciation of the material evidence placed on record, found that the material evidence is sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 66(c) of the IT Act and Section 380 read with Section 34 of IPC.”
While considering sentence, the Court noted, “Learned Trial Magistrate has taken note of the fact that the petitioners are the first time offenders and petitioner No.1 has a young wife and a two year girl child to maintain and they have cooperated for the early disposal of the criminal case.”
It further recorded, “In fact, a prima facie opinion is also formed by the learned Trial Magistrate in her discretion that the petitioners would be entitled for the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. But learned Trial Magistrate noted that nature of the offences and the intelligence used by the petitioners in committing the offence would come in the way of exercising the discretionary power under the Probation of Offenders Act and denied the said benefit to the revision petitioners.”
On modification of sentence, the Court stated, “Therefore, taking note of the fact that the petitioners were in custody for a period of 41 days which has been given set off by the learned Trial Magistrate between the period of 01.03.2011 to 12.04.2011 and by enhancing the fine amount to Rs.2,00,000/- payable by each of the petitioners, remaining period of sentence stands set aside, ends of justice would be met in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The Court also observed, “It is to be noted that every sinner has a future and criminal justice system should hate the crime and not the criminal.”
Further, it recorded, “Taking note of these aspects of the matter, imposing additional fine amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to each of the petitioners and portion of which can be paid as compensation to P.W.1, 5 and 6 would serve the ends of justice better in the case on hand instead of directing the petitioners to undergo remaining period of sentence.”
The Court directed that, “Revision petition is allowed in part. While maintaining the conviction of the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act and Section 380 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, custody period already undergone by the petitioners from 01.03.2011 to 12.04.2011 is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount to Rs.2,00,000/- each payable on or before 20.02.2026 before the Trial Court failing which the petitioners shall surrender for serving remaining period of sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court.”
“Out of the fine amount recovered, sum of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W.1, 5 and 6 respectively taking note of the financial loss suffered by them in the incident. Balance fine amount shall be appropriated towards the defraying expenses of the State.”
“Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith for passing modified conviction warrant. In view of disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.2/2025 stands disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Gouri Shankar Mot, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Praveen Y. Devareddyavara, High Court Government Pleader
Case Title: Sahadevaprasad @ Prasad & Anr. v. State of Karnataka
Neutral Citation: 2026: KHC-D:862
Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition No. 100019 of 2025
Bench: Justice V. Srishananda
