'Every Sinner Has a Future': Karnataka HC Gives ATM Card Dupers a Costly Reprieve

In a verdict blending firm accountability with rehabilitative mercy, the Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench) upheld the conviction of two men for sophisticated ATM card fraud but swapped their remaining jail time for a steep fine. Justice V. Srishananda delivered the ruling in Sahadevaprasad urf Prasad & Anr. v. State of Karnataka , emphasizing that the criminal justice system must "hate the crime and not the criminal."

Skimming Cards: The Deceptive Heist Unraveled

The saga began in 2011 when victims—identified as Prosecution Witnesses 1, 5, and 6—discovered unauthorized withdrawals from their bank accounts via ATMs. Investigations by Vidyagiri Police Station revealed that Sahadevaprasad (38) and Jayabhadhakumar (32), both Yadavs reportedly from Bihar, had allegedly stolen and duplicated the victims' ATM cards. Using pilfered PINs, they siphoned funds, landing charges under Section 66(c) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008—for identity theft via digital means—and Section 380 read with 34 of the IPC for theft in a dwelling with common intention.

Tried in CC No. 163/2011 before the 3rd Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & CJM, Dharwad, the duo was convicted on January 3, 2013: three years' simple imprisonment and Rs.25,000 fine for the IT Act offense, plus two years and Rs.5,000 for IPC theft. The 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dharwad, confirmed this in Crl.A. No. 13/2013 on October 19, 2015. Undeterred, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 100019/2025 under Sections 438 r/w 442 BNSS, arguing for acquittal after over a decade.

Defense Dodges, Prosecution Pins Down

Petitioners' counsel, G.S. Mot, hammered procedural gaps: no timely identification parade, absent bank statements proving withdrawals, hostile panch witnesses (PWs 2-4), delayed arrests sans direct complaint linkage, and "harsh" sentences unfit for first-timers. "No nexus to the crime," he urged, seeking acquittal or leniency as an "isolated incident."

The State, via HCGP Praveena Y. Devareddiyavar, painted the accused as "seasoned thieves" exploiting technology. They spotlighted investigation records (Trial Court judgment paras 13-17) linking the duo to duplicated cards and ATM raids, dismissing leniency pleas: prior clean slates don't erase the fraud's gravity.

Evidence Stands Scrutiny, Mercy Tips the Scale

Justice Srishananda meticulously reviewed the trial and appellate records, finding "sufficient materials... which would conclusively establish" the petitioners' guilt. He affirmed the lower courts' reappreciation: duplicated cards from PWs 1, 5, and 6 enabled the thefts, with the duo "misus[ing] the technology to their advantage and st[aling] the passwords."

Yet, reformation edged out retribution. Noting their 41-day custody (March 1 to April 12, 2011) already set off, first-offender status, Petitioner 1's family burdens, and cooperation, the court rejected probation (due to offense sophistication) but innovated relief. Reports highlight the trial magistrate's initial probation tilt, overridden by crime's cunning nature.

Key Observations from the Bench

• On Guilt : "It is crystal clear that the conviction order... 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."

• Crime's Cunning : "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."

• Reformative Philosophy : "It is to be noted that every sinner has a future and criminal justice system should hate the crime and not the criminal."

• Balancing Act : "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."

Verdict: Conviction Stays, But Wallets Feel the Sting

The revision petition was "allowed in part": conviction upheld, but sentences modified. Each petitioner must pay Rs.2,00,000 by February 20, 2026, before the trial court—Rs.50,000 to PW1, Rs.50,000 to PW5, Rs.25,000 to PW6 as compensation, balance to the State. Default means surrendering for original terms.

This nuanced outcome signals courts' growing flexibility in cyber-theft cases, prioritizing victim restitution and offender reintegration over prolonged incarceration—especially for reformed first-timers. As the petitioners now reside in Bihar, sustaining livelihoods, the ruling underscores justice's evolving humane core, potentially influencing sentencing in tech-enabled crimes.