To hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the promise. Such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfil the promise.

1. - Smt. Mankori petitioner was convicted by the learned Munsiff Magistrate, Nawalgarh vide his judgment dated 25-6-71 for an offence tinder section 420 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and is default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. In case the fine was realised an amount of Rs. 1500/- was to be paid to the complainant Balu Ram as compensation. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, which was dismissed. This revision has, therefore, been filed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dated 12-9-1972.

2. In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that Baluram PW 6 was unmarried and was interested in his marriage being ceremonised. The petitioner's brother Surja Ram had a daughter of marriageable age. It is said that Smt. Mankori promised to get the marriage of Baluram performed with the daughter of her brother Surja Ram on Balu Ram's paying Rs. 2800/- to Smt. Mankori. This agreement took place at the house of Ladu, the maternal uncle of Baluram and the amount of Rs. 1800/- was paid to Smt. Mankori and Smt. Mankori promissed that the marriage will be ceremonised on Ramnavmi. Subsequently, Baluram approached Smt. Mankori and she demanded the balance of Rs. 1000/- which was also paid to her. The marriage of the daughter of Smt. Mankori's brother was performed later on with some other person. When Baluram came to know about it, he approached Smt. Mankori and she promised to arrange some other girl for Baluram. Baluram waited but ultimately no girl was arranged for his marriage. A Panchayat was called before which Smt, Mankori refused to arrange for any girl for the marriage with Baluram or to refund the amount. After about 15 to 16 months of the alleged agreement, the report Ex. P/1 was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu on 15-6-1966 who in turn forwarded it to the S.H.O. Nawalgarh, for necessary action. The S.H.O. Nawalgarh, thereupon registered a case on 17-6-1966 under Section 420 IPC and after necessary investigation challaned the petitioner to the court of Sub-divisional Magistrate, Nawalgarh.

3. Learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Nawalgarh after trial convicted the petitioner for an offence under section 420 IPC and sentenced her to imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo , 6 months imprisonment. On appeal being filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, her conviction and sentenced were set aside on the ground that there had been some omission to put certain question in her examination record under section 342 Cr. P.C. The case was, therefore remanded for re-trial to the court of Munsiff-Magistrate, Nawalgarh. The learned Magistrate after trial convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above. The appeal before the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu was also dismissed.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this court is mainly to the effect that even taking the facts as alleged by the prosecution at its face falue, no offence under section 420 IPC is made out. There is no evidence on. behalf of the prosecution that the petitioner at the time of agreeing into the promise for arranging the marriage of the complainant had any intention to deceive or cheat the complainant. She did not make any fraudulent representation. At the most it was a case of breach of an agreement of promise and no criminal liability can be fastened and it may be a matter of civil liability. It is the prosecution case that before the alleged amount was paid to Smt. Mankori, it was very well verified by the maternal uncle of the complainant and one Ganpat that Suriaram had a daughter of marriageable age. It is also in the prosecution that Smt. Mankori was the whole-sale authority of Suriaram's family and, therefore, they believed that she will be a