The main legal point established in the judgment is that inducing individuals to part with money by falsely promising them jobs, which the promisor knows cannot be fulfilled, constitutes the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2015 dated 30.3.2016 vide which learned appellate Court has upheld the judgment of conviction passed against the petitioner by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chamba in Crl. Case No. 537 of 2013 decided on 13.5.2015/21.5.2015.

2. The case of the prosecution was that complainant Sardari Lal was working as a general worker (waiter) in Yatrika Hotel at Kangra and on 5.1.2002 accused stayed in the said hotel with his family. Before leaving the Hotel, accused enquired from the complainant about his qualifications and particulars and he (accused) also told him (complainant) that he could assist him in procuring some job in his department, in which he was working. Complainant expressed his intent to procure the job and accordingly on 11.1.2002 accused called the complainant telephonically to Chamba assuring him that his work was nearly done. Complainant accordingly reached Chamba on 12.2.2015 and there accused took certificates of the complainant from him and accused himself thereafter wrote a letter to the General Manager, Power Grid India, Company and told the complainant that he would be getting appointment letter within one or two days, for which a party was required to be given to some officers. On this pretext, accused took Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant. Subsequently, as per the prosecution, accused told the complainant that the entire amount has been spent and accused had also spent some money from his own pocket and asked the complainant to pay a sum of two-three thousand more on the pretext of completing some documentation work. Complainant accordingly paid another sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the accused and thereafter he returned back to Kangra on the assurance of accused that he will get the appointment letter within a week. After two days, complainant received telephonic calls from accused, who told him that there was some obstacle in the way of his appointment and accused also told him that there were two vacancies for the same post and both of them were required to be filled up simultaneously. The accused asked the complainant to bring with him another acquaintance of his. On this, the complainant got suspicious and narrated the entire story to his colleague who advised him not to give any more money to accused without getting the appointment letter. When complainant did not pay any money, as demanded by the accused, the accused started calling him over telephone. Accused used to make 4-5 telephone calls each day to the complainant stating that in case he did not pay additional money, the amount earlier paid by him would go waste. This continued for about 25 days and thereafter one day accused told the complainant that he was going to Chandigarh and asked the complainant to meet at Nurpur to pay him money assuring him that his work would be done.

3. As per prosecution, the complainant could not go to Nurpur and the accused spent his entire day making telephone calls to him. This conduct of the accused made it evident to the complainant that accused had cheated him and accordingly he made a written complaint to the police, on the basis of which FIR was registered.

4. During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer procured copy of register from Hotel Yatrika and also procured a diary from another victim Ishwari Kumar who was also cheated by the accused in a similar manner. An Ikrarnama (agreement) was also procured from one Madho Ram wherein accused had agreed to return a sum of Rs. 24,000/- to said Madho Ram. Investigation revealed that accused had cheated other victims also like Rakesh Kumar, Naresh Kumar and Suresh Kumar by inducing them to pay money in the month of February, 2001.

5. After completion of investigation challan was presented against the accused. As a prima facie case was found against him, he was char