Conviction for ATM card duplication and unauthorized withdrawals upheld; fine increased and compensation ordered to victims.
In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court at Dharwad upheld the conviction of Sahadevaprasad Urf Prasad and others in a case involving ATM card duplication and unauthorized withdrawal of money, under the Information Technology Act and the Indian Penal Code. The judgment, delivered by Justice V. Srishananda on January 23, 2026, modified the sentence initially imposed by the lower courts, treating the custody period already undergone as imprisonment and imposing an enhanced fine of Rs. 2,00,000 on each petitioner.
The petitioners were originally convicted under Section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for their role in a sophisticated fraud involving the duplication of ATM cards and unauthorized withdrawals from the accounts of the victims, identified as P.W.1, 5, and 6. The High Court found that there was sufficient material evidence to support the conviction, as the petitioners had misused technology to commit the crime.
Despite arguments from the petitioners' counsel, who contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove their involvement in the crime, the court upheld the lower court's findings. The judgment noted that the petitioners had used their technical skills to duplicate ATM cards and steal money, demonstrating a calculated criminal intent that precluded the application of the Probation of Offenders Act.
While maintaining the conviction, the High Court modified the sentence by considering the petitioners' status as first-time offenders and their cooperation during the trial. The court acknowledged the petitioners' time in custody from March 1, 2011, to April 12, 2011, as imprisonment and opted to enhance the fine instead of extending the incarceration period. Each petitioner is required to pay the increased fine by February 20, 2026, failing which they must serve the remaining sentence.
Significantly, the court directed that a portion of the fine collected be allocated as compensation to the victims, P.W.1, 5, and 6, to address the financial loss they suffered due to the fraudulent withdrawals. The remainder of the fine will be used to cover the state's legal expenses.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of balancing punitive measures with rehabilitation opportunities, acknowledging that while the crime was grave, the justice system should focus on reforming offenders. The High Court's decision reflects a nuanced approach to sentencing, aiming to serve justice while also considering the potential for rehabilitation.
Bottom Line:
Conviction under section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act and Section 380 read with Section 34 of the IPC upheld with modification in sentence; custody period already undergone treated as imprisonment, and additional fine imposed with compensation directed to victims.
Statutory provision(s): Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 66(c), Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 380 read with Section 34, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
Sahadevaprasad Urf Prasad v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka)(Dharwad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2855806
