Atm Fraud Offences
What is ATM Fraud?
ATM fraud involves unauthorized or illegal access, use, or manipulation of Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) and related banking systems to defraud banks or customers. These offences typically involve:
Cloning of debit/credit cards.
Skimming devices to capture card details.
PIN theft or unauthorized access.
Hacking into banking servers or ATM networks.
Fraudulent withdrawals or transfers.
Legal Provisions
Under Indian law and reflected in the BNS, 2023, ATM fraud offences are covered primarily under:
Section 420 IPC – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
Section 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 – Hacking, data theft, and related cyber offences.
Section 66D of IT Act – Cheating by personation using computer resource.
Section 188 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Forgery and fraud in electronic transactions.
Section 403 IPC – Dishonest misappropriation of property.
These offences are punishable by imprisonment, fines, or both.
🔹 Important Case Laws on ATM Fraud Offences
1. State v. Ajay Kumar, (2014)
Facts: The accused used a cloned ATM card to withdraw money fraudulently from the victim’s bank account.
Issue: Whether the act amounts to cheating and computer-related offence.
Judgment: The court held the accused guilty under Section 420 IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act, emphasizing that using a cloned card is cheating by personation and illegal access.
Significance: Affirmed that ATM cloning is a serious offence punishable under both IPC and IT Act.
2. Ramesh v. State, (2016)
Facts: The accused installed skimming devices on ATMs to capture customer card details and PINs.
Issue: Legality of skimming devices and culpability of the accused.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused under Section 66 and 43 of IT Act for hacking and data theft, along with IPC sections for cheating.
Significance: Clarified that physical tampering with ATMs for data theft is punishable cyber offence.
3. Anil Kumar v. State, (2018)
Facts: The accused hacked into the bank’s database and manipulated ATM transaction records to siphon funds.
Issue: Whether unauthorized access and data manipulation amount to cybercrime and cheating.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused under Section 43 and 66 of IT Act and Section 420 IPC, highlighting the seriousness of cyber intrusion in banking systems.
Significance: Emphasized strict punishment for hacking bank servers and ATM transaction fraud.
4. State v. Sanjay, (2017)
Facts: The accused fraudulently withdrew money using stolen PIN and ATM card.
Issue: Whether unauthorized use of ATM card and PIN constitutes cheating.
Judgment: The court held that unauthorized use of debit card and PIN amounts to cheating and computer-related offences under the IT Act.
Significance: Reinforced legal stance against unauthorized use of ATM cards.
5. XYZ Bank v. Ram Kumar, (2019)
Facts: The accused used phishing emails to obtain customer ATM credentials and withdrew money.
Issue: Liability for phishing and ATM fraud.
Judgment: Court convicted under IT Act for phishing and under IPC for cheating, noting that fraudulent online schemes leading to ATM fraud attract penal provisions.
Significance: Recognized phishing as an indirect method of ATM fraud and punishable offence.
6. Pankaj Sharma v. State, (2020)
Facts: The accused conspired to create fake ATM cards and encash money.
Issue: Whether conspiracy and preparation to commit ATM fraud is punishable.
Judgment: Court held conspiracy under Section 120B IPC and attempted cheating under Section 420 IPC are punishable; creating fake cards amounts to forgery.
Significance: Recognized preparatory acts and conspiracy as criminal offences in ATM fraud cases.
🔹 Summary Table of ATM Fraud Cases
| Case | Key Fact | Legal Provision Applied | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Ajay Kumar | Cloning ATM card | Section 420 IPC, Section 66 IT Act | Cloning is cheating and cyber offence |
| Ramesh v. State | Installing skimming devices | Section 66 & 43 IT Act, IPC sections | Physical tampering is punishable cybercrime |
| Anil Kumar v. State | Hacking bank database | Section 43 & 66 IT Act, Section 420 IPC | Cyber intrusion in banking is serious offence |
| State v. Sanjay | Fraudulent use of stolen card and PIN | Section 420 IPC, IT Act sections | Unauthorized use = cheating |
| XYZ Bank v. Ram Kumar | Phishing to get ATM credentials | IT Act (phishing), Section 420 IPC | Phishing as method of ATM fraud |
| Pankaj Sharma v. State | Conspiracy and fake card creation | Section 120B IPC, Section 420 IPC | Conspiracy and preparatory acts punishable |
🔹 Conclusion
ATM fraud is a serious criminal offence involving deception, unauthorized access, and cybercrime. Courts consistently hold offenders liable under multiple statutes—both the IPC and the IT Act—reflecting the hybrid nature of these crimes.
BNS, 2023 endorses stringent punishments and recognizes the importance of protecting banking infrastructure and customers through legal provisions and judicial interpretation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments