The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the inception of the transaction to establish the offence of cheating under S.420 of the IPC.

1. The petitioner who is the 1st accused in C.C.901 of 1996 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuthuparamba, challenges the concurrent verdict passed against him u/s 420 of the IPC.

2. Originally the petitioner along with five others were proceeded against at the instance of the 1st respondent for having committed the offence punishable u/s 420 and 406 IPC, and sec.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act r/w S.120(B) of the IPC. Accused Nos.2 to 6 were acquitted of all charges and the petitioner alone was found guilty u/s 420 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Though the above findings were challenged in appeal, the learned Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court after modifying the sentence. The above concurrent findings are under challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition filed u/s 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The case of the prosecution tersely stated are as follows:

PW1, the complainant is the uncle of one Usha, with whom, a proposal for marriage with the petitioner was mooted. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the uncles, accused No.4 is the sister, accused No.5 is the mother and accused No.6 is a friend of the petitioner. The petitioner belongs to Thrissur District and the complainant and his family are settled at Kannur. It is the case of the prosecution that through a mutual acquaintance, the petitioner came to hear about PW2, Usha and after making necessary inquiries, he approached her family members. The petitioner talked to his prospective bride and both of them decided to go forward with the marriage. Later, a letter was sent by the petitioner to the father of Usha on 28.6.1996 requesting him to contact his family members. On 4.7.1996, the father and other near relatives of Usha went to Thrissur and made inquiries about the whereabouts of the petitioner and thereafter went to the house of the petitioner and met his relatives. After that the petitioner is said to have contacted the complainant over phone and based on that, on 15.7.1996, the relatives of Usha went to Thrissur and they agreed for conducting a function at Kuthuparamba on 19.8.1996 for fixing the marriage date. On 7.8.1996, the petitioner sent a letter to the complainant reminding them of the arrangements to be made. On 19.8.1996 at 2.00 pm, about 36 persons, including the petitioner, went to the house of Usha and in the presence of relatives from both sides, the engagement ceremony was conducted. It was also decided that the marriage be conducted on 24.11.1996 at Thrissur. Both the petitioner as well as Usha exchanged rings at that time. According to the complainant on the day when the engagement ceremony was conducted, the petitioner and other accused demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and 50 sovereigns of gold as dowry. The complainant and the family members of Usha informed them of their inability to pay any money by way of dowry. Later, the petitioner called the complainant and demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- for the purchase of landed property. The petitioner promised that the amount would be returned. Accordingly, on 16.8.1996 in the presence of the 6th accused, a sum of Rs.40,000/- was handed over to the petitioner. Later, on 24.8.1996 the petitioner issued a letter to Usha expressing his inability to give her 'pudava' during the Onam festival. On 3.9.1996 another letter was sent to the complainant asking him to come to Thrissur with money for the purpose of arranging a hall. On 12.9.1996, the petitioner sent another letter, informing the complainant to arrange a hall and it was also informed that the petitioner is an atheist and the marriage should not be solemnized in a temple. Later, Usha is said to have received a letter on 16.9.1996 from a person by name Vijayakumar, in which it was stated that the petitioner was a person with immoral connections and he is already married.