Dishonest inducement, causing or likelihood of causing damage or harm to the person deceived in body, mind, reputation or property, and wrongful gain or wrongful loss are the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating.

These four appeals have been preferred by the State against the acquittal of the respective accused in C.C. 18 to 21 of 1973, on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Villupuram. Since the facts in each of the cases are more or less the same and since common questions of law are involved, all the four appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The facts, in C. As. 332 and 335 of 1974, are some what alike, while the facts in C. As. 333 and 334 of 1974 are similar in character.

3. The land Development Bank in Gingee introduced a scheme for disbursement of loan to agriculturists for the purpose of digging new wells or for the purchase of new oil engines. A ryot wishing to avail the loan facility had to make an application to the Bank and had also to produce a certificate from the village karnam about the extent of the land owned by him and its approximate value. Whenever a loan was sanctioned, the applicant has also to execute a mortgage deed and give property security to the Bank for the loan advanced to him. In the case of loans for digging up of wells the maximum amount fixed was Rs. 3, 000, while in the case of loans for purchasing new oil engines the maximum amount fixed was Rs. 4, 000. In the former case one-half of the loan amount will first be paid to the ryot. With that amount he had to start the digging of the well. The progress of the work will be checked and verified by an employee of the bank and on his certificate that the first instalment of the loan had been fully utilised, the balance of the loan amount would be given to the loanee. In respect of the loans for purchase of new oil engines, the loanee will have to produce a bill from the dealer, who supplied him the oil engines as proof of his having purchased an oil engine. The Bank would then issue a cheque in favour of the dealer, who had supplied the oil engine to the ryot.

4. In accordance with this scheme the respondent in C.A. No. 332 of 1974, as well as respondents 1 and 2 in C.A. 335 applied for loans from the Bank for digging new wells. All the formalities were gone through and they were given the first instalment of Rs. 1, 500. Later they produced utilisation certificates from the concerned staff member of the Bank and thereafter the second instalment was also given. The third respondent in C.A. 335 of 1974 is one such staff member, who had given utilisation certificate in favour of respondents 1 and 2 in the said appeal. Later a member of the Special Audit Squad for the Co-operative Societies made a check of the loan transactions entered into by the Bank and it was then found that the respondent in C.A. 332 of 1974 and respondents 1 and 2 in C.A. 335 of 1974, had not dug any new well in their respective lands. In the process of investigation it was also found that the third respondent in C.A. 335 of 1974 had given a false utilisation certificate. It was in these circumstances the concerned respondents in the two appeals were prosecuted for committing an offence of cheating. The 3rd respondent in C.A. 335 of 1974, was charged for abetting the commission of the offence of cheating by respondents 1 and 2.

5. In so far as the respondents in the two other appeals are concerned, the Special Audit Squad found that the first respondent in C.A. 333 of 1974, had not purchased an oil engine at all. The second respondent therein was found to have issued a false bill in favour of the first respondent to make it appear that he had purchased a new oil engine from him. Similarly the first respondent in C.A. 334 of 1974, had not purchased a new oil engine, which was not in working order at the time of inspection by the Special Audit Squad. The second respondent in the appeal was charged for abetting the offence of cheating committed by the first respondent, in that he had issued a false bill to make it appear that he had supplied a new oil engine to the first respondent.

6. The trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the loanee in each of the case