The central legal point established in the judgment is that the accused's inducement and deception in procuring money from victims constituted 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 7.5.2016, by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, H.P., upon, Cr. Appeal No. 31/2015, 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 Sardari Lal lodged a complaint against the accused, and, on its basis FIR No. 50 of 2002, of 1.3.2002, has been registered in Police Station Sadar, Chamba. Complainant reported that on 5.1.2002, accused stayed in hotel "Yatrika" at Kangra. He inquired about the qualification of the complainant and assured him to provide some job in his department and called him to Chamba. Complainant reached Chamba on 12.2.2002. Accused took his certificate and wrote a letter to G.M., Power Grid India (Company) and assured complainant that he will get appointment within 2-3 days and on the pretext of giving some party to the Officer, took Rs.5000/- from the complainant. Thereafter, accused on the pretext that he had spent the amount more that he had received from the complainant, he demanded additional sum of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3000/- on the pretext of completing some documents. Accused had taken Rs.2000/- from the complainant. Accused assured him that he will get appointment letter within a week. The accused again duped complainant that there are two vacancies for the same post which were to be filled in simultaneously and asked him to bring one more boy of his acquaintance. On this complainant got suspicious and narrated the incident to his colleague, who advised him not to give more money without getting appointment letter and when complainant stopped paying money, accused tried to contact him telephonically 4-5 times a day and had said that if he dopes not pay the additional amount, then the entire amount paid by him would get waste. Thereafter accused called him to Nurpur, but complainant did not went to him nor paid money. Accused again tried to contact him telephonically and conduct of the accused clear that he is cheating the complainant. Thereafter, he wrote a complaint to the Police, and, the police started investigation in the case. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, and, thereafter completed the other codal 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 offences, punishable under Section 419, and, under Section 420 of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 16 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 findi