Sahadevaprasad Urf Prasad S/O ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 January, 2026

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                  -1-
                                                               NC: 2026:KHC-D:862
                                                        CRL.RP No. 100019 of 2025


                       HC-KAR



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD

                           DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                                           BEFORE

                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

                      CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100019 OF 2025

                                   (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   SAHADEVAPRASAD URF PRASAD S/O DAHANPRASAD
                           YADAV
                           AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD
                           R/AT. MATASO VILLAGE,
                           TQ. FATTEPUR MOHALLA
                           KOLAHAR DIST. GAYA, STATE. BIHAR
                           PRESENTLY RESIDING AT LAXMI RESTAURANT
                           NEAR HUBLI RAILWAY STATION
                           HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580024.

                      2.   JAYABHADHAKUMAR S/O DEVANANDPRASAD YADAV
                           AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. JOB
                           R/AT. MATASO VILLAGE,
                           TQ. FATTEPUR MOHALLA
                           KOLAHAR, DIST. GAYA, STATE. BIHAR
Digitally signed by
                           PRESENTLY RESIDING AT LAXMI RESTAURANT
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
                           NEAR HUBLI RAILWAY STATION
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench.
                           HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580024.
                                                                  ...PETITIONERS
                      (BY SRI. G.S. MOT, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                      THROUGH THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER
                      VIDYAGIRI POLICE STATION, DHARWAD,
                      REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD.
                                                                      ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR, HCGP)
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2026:KHC-D:862
                                     CRL.RP No. 100019 of 2025


HC-KAR



      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 R/W
442 OF BNSS, SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 19.10.2015 PASSED IN CRL.A NO.
13/2013 PASSED BY THE 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT DHARWAD BY CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATD 03.01.2013 IN C.C.NO.
163/2011 PASSED BY THE 3RD ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN)
AND CJM, AT DHARWAD, CONVICTING THE PETITIONER FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 66(C) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (AMENDED)
ACT 2008 AND U/SEC. 380 R/W 34 OF IPC, 1860 AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONERS FROM THE ABOVE CHARGES.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

                          ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

Heard Sri.Gouri Shankar Mot, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner and Sri.Praveen Y. Devareddyavara, learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.

2. Petitioners are the accused persons who have been

convicted in CC No.163/2011 for the offences punishable under

Section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act (hereinafter

referred to as 'IT Act') and Section 380 read with Section 34 of

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and ordered

to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively and to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and two

years respectively for the aforesaid offences.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:862

HC-KAR

3. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners approached

the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.13/2013.

4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after

securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties in detail

and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction

and sentence.

5. Being further aggrieved by the same, petitioners are

before this Court, in this revision on following grounds:

 "The Impugned judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are contrary to law, facts and evidence on record, and as such the same are liable to be set aside.

 The reasons assigned by the learned Hon'ble district Judge, while passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence are erroneous and hence they have slipped into error and proceeded to pass the impugned judgments and orders of conviction and sentence, thereby resulting in substantial miscarriage of justice to the case of the petitioner.

 That no test identification parade was conducted wherein the complainant has identified the petitioners and the only time complainant identifies

NC: 2026:KHC-D:862

HC-KAR

the petitioners is during court appearance & before police which is untenable in law.

 That, there is no bank statement of the complainants to show that there was any unauthorised withdrawal of money from the bank accounts of the complainants. Absence of which is fatal to the case of the prosecution and the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail.

 That the Spot & Recovery Panchas PW-2 to 4 have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. The recovery is not proven hence there are no materials to sustain the judgements passed by the courts below.

 That the names of petitioners does not find figure in the complaint & accused are arrested only on the suspicious circumstances after 10 days, there is no nexus between the alleged offence and petitioners.

 It is submitted that the sentence Imposed by the courts below is very harsh and as such the sentence passed by the courts below is even otherwise illegal and liable to be set aside.

 The appreciation of the evidence by the courts below is illegal, erroneous and unsustainable.

 Thus, viewed from any angle, the judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are even otherwise illegal, erroneous and unsustainable."

NC: 2026:KHC-D:862

HC-KAR

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the

grounds urged in the revision petition would contend that both

the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely

implicated in the case.

7. He would further contend that no ingredients are

placed on record by the prosecution to attract the offence under

Section 66(c) of the IT Act and there is no material proof that it

is the petitioners who have withdrawn the money from the

Automated Teller Machine (hereinafter 'ATM' for short) by

duplicating the cards belonging to P.W.1, 5 and 6 and sought for

allowing the revision petition.

8. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioners

would contend that in the event, this Court, upholding the order

of conviction, the sentence may be reduced by taking note of the

fact that it is the isolated incident and petitioners are the first

time offenders.

9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

for the respondent/State would support the impugned orders by

contending that the allegations leveled against the petitioners

are serious in nature inasmuch as they have defrauded the

NC: 2026:KHC-D:862

HC-KAR

original card holders by duplicating their card by utilizing the

technology and drawn the money from the accounts of P.W.1, 5

and 6 through ATM which shows that they are seasoned thieves.

10. He would further contend that, merely on the ground

that the prosecution could not place any other case on record,

there cannot be any lenience shown to the petitioners and thus,

sought for dismissal of the revision petition.

11. Having heard the arguments of both the parties, this

Court, perused the material on record, meticulously.

12. 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. 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.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:862

HC-KAR

13. Investigation Officer has collected sufficient material

which has been discussed specifically in paragraph Nos.13 to 17

of the judgment of the Trial Court.

14. 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.

15. Having said thus, 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.

16. 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

NC: 2026:KHC-D:862

HC-KAR

discretionary power under the Probation of Offenders Act and

denied the said benefit to the revision petitioners.

17. Taking note of the same and calling for the opinion

from the Probation Officer, at this distance of time, especially

when both the petitioners are now residing in Bihar State, eking

out their livelihood through employment it would be a futile

exercise.

18. 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.

19. It is to be noted that every sinner has a future and

criminal justice system should hate the crime and not the

criminal.

20. 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

NC: 2026:KHC-D:862

HC-KAR

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.

21. Accordingly, following:

ORDER

i. Revision petition is allowed in part.

ii. 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.

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:862

HC-KAR

iii. 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.

iv. Balance fine amount shall be appropriated

towards the defraying expenses of the State.

v. Office is directed to return the Trial Court

Records with copy of this order forthwith for

passing modified conviction warrant.

vi. In view of disposal of the main matter,

I.A.No.2/2025 stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

KAV CT-CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 6