Mere receipt of money would not be cheating unless it is shown that it was received with the pre-conceived intention of denying it later on. If the intention is changed subsequently it would not be cheating.

JUDGMENT :

S. Acharya, J. - The Petitioners stand convicted u/s 420/34, Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for 3 months.

2. The prosecution case in short is that the Petitioners, who are leaders of a particular political party, came to the village Baramana and called the Adibasis of the village to the Bhagabat Ghar in that village. There Petitioner Upendranath told the villagers present that Government of Orissa would lease out fallow lands to the Adibasis who would submit application for the same.

On that account he asked the villagers to pay Rs. 11-50 Paise each to Petitioner Sachchidananda Samantray who would make arrangements for the settlement of fallow lands with each contributor. On the said understanding some of the villagers including p.ws. 1 to 5 and 8 collected Rs. 499-50 Paise and paid the same to the accused persons in three instalments. Several months passed thereafter, but the accused persons did not take any steps in that direction. The villagers approached the accused persons who deferred the matter by saying that they would get the lands in due course. When the villagers became disappointed they filed a petition (Ex. 1) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhubaneswar stating the above facts. The Sub-Divisional Officer forwarded that petition to the Officer-in-charge. Chandaka P.S. for investigation and necessary action. The Officer-in-charge on receiving the aforesaid petition from the Sub-Divisional Officer booked a case against the Petitioners.

3. The accused persons deny the charges and plead, inter alia, that this false case has been foisted against them by their political rivals, who could not defeat Petitioner Upendranath in an election in the Chandaka Panchayat Samiti in 1967. It is further stated by them that Radhashyam Narendra, whom Petitioner Upendranath defeated in the said election, being a forest contractor has foisted this false case against the Petitioners with the help of the Adibasis who work under him as coolies. Two defence witnesses have been examined in support of the defence case.

4. The trial Court found that the Petitioners dishonestly induced p.ws. 1 to 5 and 8 and their co-villagers to deliver money to them on the plea that they would procure Anabadi lands for them on lease from the Government and because of such false representations the villagers paid a sum of Rs. 499-50 Paise to the Petitioners.

The Court below finds that these two Petitioners went to the village of p.ws. 1 to 5 and 8 and represented before the said witnesses and the villagers that the Petitioners would be able to procure Anabadi lands for those villagers who would pay Rs. 11-50 Paise to the Petitioners towards expenses for the said purpose. Accordingly Rs. 499-50 Paise was paid to the Petitioners by the said witnesses and their co-villagers. It also finds that the Petitioners were not the persons in authority nor the agents of the State Government to grant lease of waste lands to the Adibasis and so they had no business to collect money from the villagers on that account. It holds that the said representation by the Petitioners was false and they had dishonest intention in collecting money from the villagers by misrepresenting facts to them.

5. Mr. Ram the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, challenged the correctness of the findings and conclusions of the Court below both on grounds of law and fact. At first he urged that both the Courts have completely misapprehended the evidence on record and have arrived at findings which are not based on the evidence on record. He drew my attention to certain relevant portions of the evidence and its discussion in the impugned judgment in order to show that the Court below completely lost sight of or did not attach proper importance to certain patent and significant discrepancies on important material particulars regarding the alleged collection of money, the quantum thereof and its payment to the Petitioners. It is alleged by p.ws. 1 to 5 and 8