1. - By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC, the order dated 24.06.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Udaipur (for short "the revisional Court" hereinafter) in criminal revision No. 14/2008 has been challenged whereby the revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.03.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur (for short "the trial Court" hereinafter) taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 and 120B IPC.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3. On a FIR being lodged by complainant Bhagwat Singh before challan against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 and 120B IPC, upon which the trial Court took the cognizance of the offences vide order dated 11.03.2008 and issued process. That order came to be challenged by the petitioner before the revisional Court and the revisional Court did not interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Hence this petition.

4. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that from the averments made in the complaint; no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner. The complainant lodged the FIR alleging therein that the land bearing Khasra No. 1616 situated at Village Savina was sold by one Tulsi Ram since died in favour of Smt. Kanta for valuable consideration, however, the document of sale could not be registered in favour of the purchaser Smt. Kanta for want of sufficient stamp on the document and thereafter said Tulsi Ram sold the land to one Shanker Lal for the same price and on same value of stamp paper. The petitioner was Sub-Registrar at the relevant time and being the Registering Authority registered the sale document and, therefore, according to the complainant, he has been cheated by the petitioner and the offence of entering into criminal conspiracy with the buyer has also been made out. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, neither the offence of cheating as defined under Section 415 IPC, nor the offence of criminal conspiracy is made out.

5. The offence of cheating has been defined under Section 415 IPC, provides that whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonest induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". The Explanation provides that a dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this Section.

6. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is no allegation in the FIR that the petitioner by deceiving the complainant, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the complainant to deliver any property to any person nor he consented to retain the property. So far as the petitioner is concerned, at the relevant time, he was Sub-Registrar and at the time of registration of any document presented before the petitioner, he was to see the market value of the property and the stamp, payable for that and he might have returned the documents to the executant for want of sufficient stamp duty though there is no evidence that the document was presented and then returned. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, there is no evidence that the sale document was presented by the executant and then returned by the petitioner and it is only a bald statement of the complainant. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner there is nothing on record to suggest that any such document was presented before the petitioner for registration and was returned by the petitioner for want of sufficient stamp. Had the document been presented before the petitioner and returned for want of sufficient stamp,