The court emphasized that the dishonest intention constituting the mens rea for cheating could be inferred from the facts and circumstances admitted or proved, including subsequent conduct.

Complainant is the appellant. C.C. No. 186 of 1985 is a private complaint filed by him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Tellicherry against the two respondents for an offence punishable under S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the accused were acquitted by the Magistrate.

2. The case of the appellant is that on account of the deceit and the fraudulent or dishonest inducement of both the respondents, he was made to part with Rs. 35,000/- in their favour on the assurance that N.O.C., visa, job and other facilities will be arranged for him in some Gulf Countries.

3. The first respondent is running a travel and recruiting agency under the name "M/s United Enterprises". The head office is at Bombay and branch office is there at Tellicherry. Second accused is the employee of the first accused in the office at Tellicherry. On getting information, the appellant approached the accused and he was asked to go over to Bombay to meet the first accused. First accused was informed of his desire to go on employment to Gulf Countries. He promised to arrange everything and the appellant was got interviewed at the intervention of the first accused by one Mathew. Thereafter, Rs. 35,000/- was demanded/informing that he is successful in interview and there is no problem and he will get visa shortly. As a first consignment, the first accused wanted Rs. 8,000/-. Since he had no amounts with him and as directed by the lst accused, he returned to Tellicherry and paid Rs. 8,000/- to the 2nd accused on 6-12-1983, for which a receipt was also given. Then he was frequently contacting the 1st accused at Bombay and he was being given encouraging informations. He was also informed subsequently against the earlier assurance that the interview already conducted has been concluded and another visa could be arranged without interview. The balance amount of Rs. 27,000/- demanded by the lst accused was handed over to him when he came over to Tellicherry on 16-2-1984.

4. Thereafter, as directed by the first accused, the appellant reached Bombay for medical check-up. He underwent medical check-up and stayed there for sometime. Since the attitude of the 1st accused was not found encouraging, he had to return. Finally he realised that he was being cheated. Therefore on 28-5-1985, he went to Tellicherry office, where both the accused were present. When the amount was demanded, the attitude of the 1st accused was denial coupled with a statement that his amount is in the Arabian sea. The complaint was filed on these allegations.

5. The appellant examined himself as P.W. 1. Two other witnesses are examined as PWs. 2 and 3. Exts. P1 to P3 are the documents proved by him. DWs 1 and 2 are the witnesses examined for the defence and Exts. D1 to D3 are the documents. Exts. X1 and X2 are the documents produced and proved through DW. 2. The learned Magistrate considered the evidence in detail and rejected the prosecution case not only by discrediting the prosecution evidence, but also by observing that an offence of cheating is not made out. In that process the defence evidence was also believed.

6. The defence, as argued before me was that on behalf of the first accused, an amount of Rs. 8,000/- alone was received by the 2nd accused and at the request of the appellant, it was repaid by the 2nd accused. But in the cross-examination of PW. 1, one suggestion made was that the amount was paid to DW. 1 who in turn paid the same to the appellant. Another suggestion was that the entire amount of Rs. 8,000/- paid by the appellant was already spent for expenses in connection with recruitment, interview etc. While questioned under S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the first accused at first denied having received Rs. 8,000/- through the 2nd accused on 6-2-1983, in answer to a subsequent question, he admitted that the amount was received by the 2nd accused and Ext. P1 is the receipt issued by him for that purpose. When he was asked during the