The main legal point established in the judgment is that for construing an offence under Section 420 IPC, it is essential to show fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of the transaction, and a mere failure to keep up a promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating.

H.R. Panwar, J.-All these criminal revision petitions under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code" hereinafter) involve identical question of law and common facts, therefore, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, these revision petition are being heard together and decided by a common order taking S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 19/2005 as the leading case.

2. Briefly stated, the facts, to the extent they are relevant and necessary for decision of these revision petitions, are that the complainants, who are villagers of village Sayala area, district Jalore, lodged a report on 02.05.2002 with Police Station, Sayala, district Jalore, that they sold their crops of cuminseed (Jeera), Guda Jeera, castor-oil seed (Arandi), black and yellow mustard etc. to the petitioners on various dates at a shop of the petitioners situate at Krishi Mandi, Sayala. Subsequently, with a mal-intention, the petitioners did not pay the sale proceeds to the villagers. On this report, a crime report under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, was registered and the police ensured the investigation in various crime reports. It appears that the aforesaid goods were sold by the various complainants on the assurance that in turn the petitioners will sell the goods at Unza Mandi (Gujarat) and pay the sale proceeds to the villagers from whom the goods were taken. The villagers have been paid a size-able amount for the goods sold by them to the petitioners but some of the amount remained outstanding. On Challan being filed by the police for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, against the petitioners, the Judicial Magistrate, Jalore framed the charge for the offence under Section 420 IPC. However, the trial Court did not find prima facie case for the offence under Section 406 IPC, and the petitioners were discharged of this offence. Aggrieved by the order framing charge under Section 420 IPC, the petitioners have preferred these revision petitions.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the orders impugned, as also the Challan papers.

4. On record, there is a consent letter between the petitioners and the villagers stating therein that about 200 agriculturists gave their crops on credit basis to the petitioners on the assurance that the crops on being sold by the petitioners, the sale proceeds will be paid to the villagers who sold their crops on credit basis. The price of the crops received from various villagers, numbering in all 149 agriculturist, was Rs. 74,52,704/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 50 lac was paid to various agriculturists

who sold their crops to the petitioners and a details thereof has been filed on record. The grievance of the various complainants is that out of the actual amount of sale proceeds, some amount of each of the agriculturist remained outstanding, which the petitioners failed to pay and, therefore, the petitioners have committed the offence of cheating.

5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there is no evidence that the petitioners had fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of taking the goods from the complainants on credit, which is clear from the fact that the petitioners have paid to the various agriculturists various amounts totaling Rs. 50 Lac, which clearly goes to show that right from inception, petitioners had no intention to deceive or cheat the complainants, as there is absolutely no evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intention of the petitioners at the time of buying the goods from the complainants on credit basis.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor and the Counsel for the complainants submit that though the complainant-agriculturists agreed for a particular amount, as mentioned in the schedule produced on record, but the entire amount of sale proceeds has not been paid to them by the petitioners and, therefore, to the extent of non-payment of part of the sale proceeds, they have been cheated.

7. I have g