Sentence for cyber-fraud mule account convictions reduced to period undergone based on reformative principles.

The Appellant was convicted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, for offences involving cyber fraud proceeds

In 2024, authorities identified the Appellant’s bank account as a "mule account" used to receive fraudulently obtained funds totaling ₹50,000

The Appellant admitted that his account was used by a co-accused in exchange for ₹5,000

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) for each count

On appeal, the Appellant did not challenge the conviction but sought a reduction in sentence, noting he had already served 10 months and 12 days, had no prior criminal record, and was a low-income auto driver

1. Whether the conviction of the Appellant under Sections 317(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is legally sustainable

2. Whether the substantive sentence of three years RI should be reduced to the period already undergone based on the principles of reformative justice

The Court applied Section 317(2) (dealing with stolen property/proceeds of crime) and Section 61(2) (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

It further relied on the landmark precedent Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1977) 3 SCC 287, which establishes that the focus of penology should be therapeutic and rehabilitative rather than purely retributive, emphasizing that the state should aim to redeem and rehabilitate the offender rather than avenge the crime

The Court affirmed the conviction, finding no illegality in the Trial Court’s findings

However, in evaluating the sentence, the Court applied the "re-culturisation" and reformative theory from Mohammad Giasuddin

The Court observed that the Appellant is a socio-economically disadvantaged individual—a poor auto driver with limited education (8th standard)—who had no previous criminal antecedents

Additionally, the Court noted that the fine had been deposited, only a single mobile phone was seized, and the Appellant had already been incarcerated for over ten months

Given that the primary co-accused was absconding and the Appellant played a secondary role, the Court reasoned that the ends of justice would be met by prioritizing rehabilitation over prolonged incarceration

The sentence of fine remained intact

The Court ordered the Appellant’s immediate release from jail, provided he was not required for any other offence