B.P. Katakey, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 24.06.2002 passed by the learned Session Judge, Karimganj in Criminal Appeal No. 9(1) of 1999 dismissing the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner by upholding the judgment of conviction dated 15.02.99 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Karimganj in C.R. Case No. 1489 of 1997 convicting the revision petitioner under Section 417 IPC and sentencing him to under go rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to under go rigorous imprisonment for the period of three months and further directing that the fine, if realized, shall be paid to the victim girl as compensation under Section 357(3) to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The complainant i.e. the victim girl filed the complaint petition being C.R. Case No. 1489 of 1997 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, alleging that the accused/revision petitioner who is her cousin brother and stays near the house of the complainant, used to visit her house off and on the thus, developed intimacy and insisted for having sexual relation, which was though initially refused by her, but, when he assured her to marry; she consented for such sexual relation and as a result of which she become pregnant. It has further been alleged in the said complaint petition that when the fact of pregnancy was reported to the accused/revision petitioner, though he initially assured her to marry, but subsequently he refused to marry and thereby deceived her by dishonestly inducing her to give consent for sexual relationship and by intentionally inducing her to surrender to the accused/revision petitioner and there by causing damage to the complainant. The complainant has also alleged that she gave birth to a male child. The complainant's case was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (sadar) Karimganj for trial and disposal.

3. After examination of the complainant under Section 202 Cr. P.C. the cognizance under Section493/417 IPC was taken against the accused/revision petitioner, who on receipt of the summons appeared before the learned Trial Court. Four witnesses including the complainant herself was thereafter examined and on the basis of the evidences on record the charge under Section 417 IPC was framed against the accused revision petitioner, which when read over was denied by him claiming trial. After cross-examination of the witnesses of the complainant by the accused/revision petitioner, his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. The accused was given the opportunity to examine the defence witness, if any, to which he declined. On conclusion of the trial the learned Trial Court passed the judgment of conviction as aforesaid and against which, though the appeal was preferred before the learned Session Judge, Karimganj, the same was also dismissed and hence the present revision petition.

4. We have heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. K. Munir, the learned Public Prosecutor, Assam.

5. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the accused/revision petitioner referring to Section 417of IPC has submitted that from a bare reading of the said penal provision it is evident that the conviction under Section 417 IPC can be maintained only when the factum of cheating under Section415 IPC is proved. According to the learned Counsel it is evident from the definition of cheating in Section 415 IPC that to constitute cheating the deception must be in relation of the property, though property may or may not be delivered. In the instant case it is being the allegation that the prosecutrix has suffered damage or harm in body because of the deception by the revision petitioner for which she surrendered to him and there being no allegation of deception in relation to the property, there cannot be any question of conviction under Section 417 IPC.