( 1 ) THIS revision application is directed against an order of discharge of the accused who were charged under sec. 420 read with sec. 34 I. P. Code. The case against them was that the four opponents who will hereinafter be referred to as the accused entered into an agreement for the sale of a house although at that time there was an injunction order of a civil court issued to them under which they were prohibited from selling the property. It was therefore contended that the complainant was deceived as the fact of an injunction order was concealed from the complainant by the accused and that as a result of this deception the complainant gave Rs. 8 0 to the accused. The learned Magistrate held that the accused were not bound to disclose to the complainant that there was an injunction order of a civil court. He therefore thought that the matter was one of a civil nature and therefore discharged the accused.

( 2 ) IN revision it is contended that the order of discharge is wrong. Exception to sec. 415 I. P. Code provides that a dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of that section. On the question as to whether there can be a concealment of fa