IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Section 182 Cr. P.C. does not limit the scope or ambit of section 179 Cr. P.C. An accused can be prosecuted for cheating also at, he place where deception was practised.
2. Pendency of civil suit against accused for recovery of amount obtained by cheating is no bar to his prosecution under section 420 I.P.C.

JUDGMENT

S. S. Sodhi, J. - Messrs Punjab Tractors Limited, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, manufacture tractors and for their sale have a network of authorised dealers allover the country. Amongst their dealers were Messrs Gautam Enterprises, Fatehpur. The petitioner Ravinder Pal Singh Gautam being its Managing Partner.

The matter here arises from a criminal complaint filed by Messrs Punjab Tractors against the petitioners alleging therein that a sum of Rs. 87,000/- was due from them when on December 10, 1982, Shri R. P. Singh Gautam came to the registered office of Messrs Punjab Tractors at Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar and met the head of the marketing zone 'B' Mr. A.M. Sawhney, in the presence of the Accounts Officer Mr. P.C. Jain and represented to them that within 15 days the State Bank of India, Rai Bareli was going to hold a prestigious Loan Distribution Function to disburse loans to farmers for the purchase of six tractors. He told them that he had prevailed upon the bank authorities to disburse such loans to farmers for the purchase of tractors manufactured by their Company only. For this purpose, he required three Swaraj 737 and three Swaraj-Sartaj tractors, saying that the case with regard to the sale of these six tractors, through the bank had already prepared and was ready with bank authorities and assured that they would not be sold in any other manner except through the bank at this function. The said two officials of M/s Punjab Tractors, namely; Mr. A.M. Sawhney and Mr. P.C. Jain, however, expressed their inability to supply any tractors to the petitioner until he had paid the sum of Rs. 87,000/- due from him. The petitioner promised that he would clear the said amount of Rs. 87,000/- by the end of December 1982 and expressed surprise that Messrs Punjab Tractor were willing to lose this opportunity of enhancing its reputation by selling six of its tractors to farmers in a prestigious function organized by the bank, where not only loans were to be given to the farmers, but tractors too would be sold to them. He further pleaded his case by emphasising that he had already made a promise to the bank authorities with regard to these tractors and if his request for them was not accepted, his reputation as also that of Messrs Punjab Tractors would suffer. In this behalf, he also stressed that by the sale of these tractors, at this function, Messrs Punjab Tractors and their products could earn a big name in the area because many important dignitaries would be present there. The petitioner, in this behalf also agreed to hold six tractors in trust till the bank function and made a commitment that he would discharge this trust by making payment to Messrs Punjab Tractors for all their six tractors immediately on receipt of their payment without any deduction. He further assured that these six tractors would be sold only for the loans disbursed to the farmers at the bank function and would not be sold to any other person. Relying upon these assurances, the petitioner was given the six tractors as asked for by him. Three Swaraj-735 tractors were despatched on that very day, that is, December 10, 1982 and three Swaraj-Sartaj tractors on the next day, that is December 11, 19112. The petitioner received all these tractors within a week of their despatch.

2. On December 28, 1982 however, when Mr. A.M. Sawhney the Head of the Marketing Division of the complainant. Company met the petitioner at Rai Bareli and asked for payment of out-standing dues, he learnt that only three out of the six tractors sent to the petitioner, for the bank function, were actually supplied by the petitioner to the bank. The three other tractors were sold by him to other persons and instead of discharging the trust which he held taken upon himself in respect of these six tractors, the petitioner had dishonestly misappropriated and converted to his own use all the sale proceeds in respect of six tractors and had utilized this amount for his own use. Specific ment