Cheating under Section 420 IPC and criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC are distinct offenses with different legal concepts and elements.

The first accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri in C.C. No. 31 of 198, tried upon a private complaint for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code along with two others, who was convicted for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, felt aggrieved by the judgement dated 30-8-89 canvasses the same for want of legality, propriety and validity in this criminal revision

2. On 20-1-1982 at Moonumothemmozhi in Nagarcoil District the revison petitioner being the first accused, along with his wife second accused, by name Bakiathai, approached P.W.1 Bagialakshmi to get a gold chain weighing about five sovereigns and another chain weighing about 2 1/2 sovereigns to attend a marriage of their near relative in some other village by giving an assurance to the respondent to return the jewels after attending the marriage and on such representation they made the said Bagialakshmi to part with the jewels and thereafter, they never returned the same as promised. But, later they pledged the said jewellery in the bank as if they belonged to them. Even after, repeated demand and requests they deliberately failed to redeem and return the same. A complaint lodged by the said Bagialakshmi to the concerned police was since of no yield, was private complaint against the revision petitioner first accused, his wife and his father for abetment a lodged before the learned Magistrate, under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the offences under Section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code

3. By taking such complaint to file and after recording the evidence of five prosecution witnesses in accordance with precedual law and giving further opportunity to cross examine them in the context of the plea of defence taken by and on behalf of the accused and on consideration of the copy of the complaint, along with the receipt produced for redeeming the jewellery of the complainant, itself and the letter correspondence that took place between the parties, marked as Exs. P. 1 to P.12, learned trial Magistrate found the first accused alone as guilty for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as the complainant had established the guilt of the accused beyond the realm of doubt and that while doing so, he acquitted the second and third accused of both the offencesConsequently, learned Magistrate convicted the first accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and also imposed a fine of Rs. 3, 000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code

4. On appeal filed in C.A. No. 252 of 1989 learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli by his order dated 27-6-1990, after having reappraised and consideed the whole legal evidence and the rival pleas in a very elaborate manner rejected the appeal and all the contentions put forward on behalf of the accused and confirmed the conviction and sentence against the first accused and aggrieved by this, the revision petitioner has filed this criminal revision case

5. It was the endeavour of Miss. Latha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge have committed a mistake and serious error in finding the accused guilty for the defence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code while acquitting him for the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code for want of legal evidence and mens rea and that since both the Courts have concurred that the complainant has not established the defence committed by the first accused for the charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, the conviction and sentence recorded by both the Courts run counter, as the concept of law involved in Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code are depending on each other. Perhaps, this is the only legal plea being ventured before me while canvassing this revision

6. Of course, the above contention was co