Point of Law – Fraud and cheating – Acquittal justified - no inducement was given to the complainant by respondent No.1 to deliver any property as the disputed property was already in possession of respondent No.1. Therefore, the act of respondent No.1 does not come within the definition of 'cheating' as defined under Section 415 of IPC.

ORDER :

1. This criminal revision has been brought being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.11.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.66/2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara thereby allowing the appeal against conviction and acquitting the respondents from all the charges framed against them.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that complainant Shailendra Kumar Nayak (PW-1) is the recorded owner of land bearing khasra No.302 area 0.54 hectare situated in village Khudmuda, District Durg. Fraudulent sale-deed of this land was executed by respondent No.1 presenting himself as owner of the land above mentioned, on the basis of fraudulent revenue documents, which were provided by the respondent No.2, who was Patwari of that circle. This fraudulent sale-deed was executed in favor of Smt. Janki Bai PW-3.

3. Written complaint Ex.P-1 was made by Shailendra Kumar Nayak based on which FIR was registered, case was investigated and charge-sheet was filed against the respondents. The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC against respondents. On completion of trial, the judgment dated 31.7.2018 was delivered convicting both the respondents for commission of offence under Sections 420, 464, 468, 471, 34 of IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.500/-for each offence. Appeal preferred has been allowed vide impugned order and the respondents have been acquitted.

4. Learned State Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal in favor of the respondents is totally erroneous, illegal and incorrect. There had been clear evidence present that the respondent No.1 was not the owner of the property which was sold by him, as he presented himself as owner on the basis of forged revenue documents copies, which were provided by the respondent No.2. The witnesses of prosecution have very clearly supported the prosecution case even the purchaser of land in the said fraudulent sale has supported the prosecution case, therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal against the respondent is totally perverse and is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the impugned judgment may be set aside and the judgment of conviction by the trial Court may be restored.

5. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that the respondent No.1, who worked as a sweeper, was given disputed land for cultivation by the ancestors of complainant Shailendra Kumar Nayak, who had been Malgujar in the old times, and he was in possession continuously. Therefore, it is a case of long possession of the respondent No.1 on the basis of which he has acquired title over the disputed land and on this basis he was entitled to execute sale-deed. It is submitted that the learned appellate Court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents in the impugned judgment, hence, the revision petition be dismissed.

6. I have heard both the parties and perused the documents on record.

7. The learned appellate Court has considered on the statement of complainant Shailendra Kumar Nayak PW-1 in cross-examination that respondent No.1 used to work as Sweeper for his ancestors, therefore, he was given disputed land for earning livelihood. It has been observed in the impugned judgment that after the enactment of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the tenants and other persons in possession have acquired title over such properties in their possession. It was also observed that the document that were in favor of the respondents were not exhibited and proved by the prosecution and that there is no evidence to show as to who is the person, who has done forgery in the documents. On this basis it was held that prosecution against the respondents is full of doubts and the respondents were acquitted.

8. The documentary evidence present in the records includes the sale-deed Ex.P-4 which has been proved by Janki Bai PW-3 tha