The central legal point established in the judgment is that inducing individuals to pay money on false promises of securing jobs constitutes the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant Criminal Revision Petition, stands directed by the petitioner/accused/convict, against, the judgment rendered on 20.5.2016, by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, H.P., upon, Cr. Appeal No. 04/2015, wherethrough, he affirmed the judgement of conviction and sentence, as, recorded, upon, the accused/petitioner herein, by the learned trial Court.

2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that Complainant Suresh Kumar moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, alleging therein that in the years 2000-2002, the accused induced him to pay money to him on different dates on the promise of procuring him job of Vidya Upasak in Education Department, and, in total, the accused had induced the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/-. However, neither any job was procured nor the accused returned the money to the complainant. The application of the complainant was forwarded to the police for investigation, on the basis of which FIR No.197 of 202 of 25.7.2002 under Section 420/34 of the IPC was registered against the accused and his wife Praveen Begum (since deceased). During the investigation, it has also come to the notice of the investigating officer that the accused had cheated victims of the present case and so many other persons. In the present case Vikram Kumar, Hans Raj and Anjana Kumari had been cheated by the accused by inducing them to pay a sum of Rs.4000/-, Rs.500/- and Rs.2000/- respectively, in July and August, 2001, in association with his wife. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, and, thereafter completed the other formalities relating to the investigations.

3. On conclusion of the investigations, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173, of, the Code of Criminal Procedure, stood hence prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court.

4. The accused/petitioner herein stood charged by the learned trial Court, for his, committing an offence, punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hence stood recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, he claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication in the case.

5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction upon the accused/petitioner herein, for his, committing an offence punishable under Sections 420 of the IPC. In an appeal preferred therefrom by the accused/petitioner herein, before the learned Sessions Judge concerned, the latter affirmed the apposite findings of conviction, and, sentence, as, recorded in the judgment pronounced by the learned trial Court.

6. The the petitioner herein/accused, stands aggrieved, by the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge concerned, in, affirmation to the judgment of conviction recorded against him, by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein/accused has concertedly, and, vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned Sessions Judge concerned, rather standing not based, on, a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by him, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction warranting reversal by this Court, in, the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal.

7. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General has with considerable force, and, vigour, contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge concerned, rather standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by him, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating a