JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner along with Ms. Nalini Jha, Advocate.

2. Heard Mr. Suraj Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

3. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

4. This criminal revision application has been filed for setting aside the judgment dated 4th August, 2012, passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur in Cr. Appeal No. 128 of 2010 whereby the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo further imprisonment of two months. The order of conviction was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, at Jamshedpur, in Complaint C/1 Case No. 1128 of 2001.

Submission on behalf of the petitioner.

5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the materials on record and the findings recorded by the learned court below, the basic ingredients of offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code are not satisfied. He also submits that it has been specifically recorded that upon perusal of the evidences adduced by the witnesses examined by the complainant, it transpired that the money was given by the complainant to the accused as friendly loan. He submits that once the finding of friendly loan has been arrived at by the learned appellate court, under such circumstances, the criminal intent which is required to convict the petitioner under Section 420 Indian Penal Code is totally absent. He submits that at best this is a case arising out of civil dispute. The learned counsel has also submitted that so far as the other offences are concerned, the petitioner has been acquitted for those offences.

Arguments on behalf of Opposite party No. 2 and the State.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the learned courts below have passed well-reasoned judgements considering the entire materials on record. He has specifically submitted that the intention to cheat the complainant also reflected from the fact that at the stage of bail the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the opposite party no. 2 for refund of the entire amount but no payment was made. He has submitted that the present case is not at all of civil nature and the petitioner has been rightly held guilty of offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. He also submits that if a person has taken loan putting another person into belief that he will repay the loan and he does not intend to repay, a clear case of cheating is made out. He has also submitted that on account of concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below, no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction by this court.

The learned counsel for the State has supported the arguments advanced by the opposite party no. 2.

Findings of this Court

7. As per the complaint case, both the complainant and the petitioner were employees of Telco Company Ltd. and families of both had good relationship. In the month of June, 2000, on persuasion of the petitioner, the complainant took E.S.S. from the company and thereafter the petitioner induced the complainant to invest the E.S.S. amount in the institutions established by him and also assured the complainant regarding handsome return. Thereafter the complainant under the influence of sweet proposals of the accused gave him a total amount of Rs. 2,65,000/- on different dates firstly on 20.11.2000 he paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner at his residence in presence of witness namely Ram Kailash Mishra which was withdrawn by the complainant from the Bank in presence of witness. The amount was paid on different dates partly in ca