A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, is said to cheat.

JUDGMENT

M.L. Singhal, J. - Vide order dated 13.2.1996 Deep Chand alias Deepa and Kishan Chand were convicted under Section 410/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Kishan Chand was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 800/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months, while Deep Chand alias Deepa was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one week under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Guhla.

2. On appeal to the Court of Session, learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted Deep Chand alias Deepa and appeal of Kishan Chand was dismissed in toto and sentence passed upon him by the learned Magistrate was up held.

3. Prosecution case in brief is that Ram Kishan made complaint to SHO Police Station, Pundri wherein he alleged that he was owning 12 acres of land in his cultivation. About 1-1/2 months prior to 11.6.1983 he had applied for a loan of Rs. 10,000/- for the purchase of motor, thresher from the Land Mortgage Bank Pundri through accused Kishan Chand and Hari Ram. Kishan Chand and Hari Ram were jointly running a shop under the name and style of M/s Krishna Traders, Pundri. Deep Chand used to assist and help Kishan Chand and Hari Ram in the supply of goods being sold by the firm M/s Krishna Traders, Pundri. Accused assured Ram Kishan and other loanees regarding the sanction of the loan. Loan was duly sanctioned and cheques for the amount of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 9,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- were handed over to accused Kishan Chand as partner of M/s Krishna Traders, Pundri against authority letter issued by the loanees and the receipts executed by the loanees and by Kishan Chand. All the accused jointly kept the loan amounts with them. Amount of loan was not paid to Ram Kishan and others by the said firm. Accused jointly received the amounts by dishonestly inducing the bank into the belief that they had supplied threshers and electric motors to Ram Kishan etc. Accused jointly received an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each from the said bank by way of cheating in the name of Ajmer Singh son of Bakhtawar Singh, Bakhtawar Singh son of Tota Ram and Nirmal Singh son of Singh Ram. It was alleged that accused had also cheated Ram Singh, Multan Singh and Smt. Jaswinder Kaur. On this complaint case FIR 236 dated 11.6.1983 under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Pundri against Deep Chand alias Deepa, Kishan Chand and Hari Ram son of Lakhpat. Case was investigated. After investigation, Deep Chand alias Deepa, Kishan Chand and Hari Ram were challaned.

Hari Ram became proclaimed offender during the trial. Deep Chand alias Deepa and Kishan Chand were charged under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code. They pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

4. On the conclusion of the trial, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Guhla found the charge under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code proved against Deep Chand alias Deepa and Kishan Chand. He accordingly convicted them thereunder and sentenced them as indicated above. Appeal was accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal qua Deep Chand alias Deepa while qua Kishan Chand appeal was dismissed.

5. Not satisfied with the decision of the two Courts below, Kishan Chand has come up in revision to this Court.

6. In my opinion, finding of guilt returned by the two Courts below concurrently on appreciation of evidence, which cannot be said to be unjust does not call for any interference in revision by this Court. So, conviction of Kishan Chand recorded by the two Courts below is maintained.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not seriously contest the finding of guilt arrived at by the two Courts below and in my opinion rightly so. Smt. Jaswi