1. This revision petition is filed, under Section 397, read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order dated 12-10-2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2007 dismissing the criminal appeal and upholding the judgment and order, dated 13-06-2007, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morigaon, in GR Case No. 215/2004, convicting the accused-petitioner, under Section 420 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 2 (two) months.

2. I have heard Mr. BM Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-petitioner, and Mr. NK Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

3. The facts leading to the case is that, Sri Jadav Das, Smt. Lahari Das and Smt. Sewali Devi lodged an FIR on 04-04-2004 in Morigaon Police Station alleging that the accused persons Sri Upen Deka and Smt. Sinu Deka are their neighbours and they had received an amount of Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- respectively from the informants assuring them that they would provide them some employments in Noonmati Oil Refinary, Guwahati. According to them, the amount was received as security deposits. The aforesaid three persons, from whom the accused-petitioners took the money, were taken to Guwahati and a rented house was arranged for their stay, and thereafter, they were given employment under a local contractor, as temporary measure. The boys returned home after one month as no employment was given to them by the accused-petitioner, as assured. The accused also did not return the money to them on their demand; rather, avoided them on this or that pretext.

4. On the above facts, the aforesaid three persons, namely, Sri Jadav Das, Smt. Lahari Das and Smt. Sewali Devi filed the FIR with Morigaon Police Station, which was registered as Morigaon Police Station Case No. 55/2004, under Sections 420/406 IPC, investigated into it, collected evidence and then submitted charge-sheet under Sections 420/406 of the IPC against the accused person. The co-accused named in the FIR, Smt. Sinu Deka, was not charge-sheeted.

5. On appearance of the accused-petitioner, a formal charge, under Sections 420/406 of the IPC was framed to which he pleaded innocence. Therefore, the trial commenced. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner denied the allegations made against him and also declined to adduce any evidence from his side.

6. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, which included the Investigating Police Officer and the defence examined none.

7. The evidence of PW1 is that the accused-petitioner received an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from him assuring that he would give an employment to PW1’s son, Raju Das. Although he demanded initially an amount of Rs. 40,000/-.

8. PW4, Smt. Sandhani Das, wife of PW1, was also present at the time of transaction between the accused-petitioner and PW1. The accused-petitioner took the son of PW1 with other candidates to Guwahati, kept them in a rented house. After three months, they went back to their homes as no job was provided to them as assured. They were made to work under a contractor only instead of employment in Oil Refinery. The accused-petitioner also refused to return the money taken from PW1.

9. PW2 and PW3 also deposed in the same way that the accused-petitioner had taken the amount of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively from them with assurance that he would arrange employment for the nephew and the son of PW2 and PW3 respectively in Noonmati Oil Refinery. The evidence of PW4 makes it appear that he has consistently corroborated the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3. PWs 1, 2 and 3 are also informants in this case and FIR (Ext.1) was exhibited through PW1.

10. PW5, Bhogeswar Konwar, also deposed that the accused-petitioner received an amount