The central legal point established in the judgment is that the concealment of information and fraudulent acts, as defined under Sections 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 423, and 426 of the IPC, led to the conviction of the petitioner for cheating.

JUDGMENT

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. - The present revision petition raises a challenge to the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat dated 01.06.2017 passed in the Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2013, as well as the judgment of conviction dated 20.11.2013 and order of sentence dated 22.11.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ganaur in Criminal Case No.248/1 of 2008 arising out of FIR No.85 dated 29.03.2006 under Sections 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 423, 426 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') registered at Police Station Ganaur.

2. That briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.08.2005, accused-Satish Kumar executed an agreement to sell for agricultural land measuring 1 Kanal 4 Marlas being 24/3009 share, out of land measuring 150 Kanals 9 Marlas situated within the municipal limits of Ganaur, Tehsil Ganaur District Sonepat, in favour of the complainant-Ramesh and received an earnest money of Rs.1 lakh. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 31.03.2006. It is alleged that the petitioner-accused had also executed another agreement to sell in favour of one Naresh Dhiman S/o Rambhaj dated 29.06.2005 and the said fact was not disclosed to the complainant. The complainant claims to have become aware of the said fact upon receipt of summons from the Court in civil suit titled as 'Naresh Dhiman Versus Satish Kumar', wherein the complainant had been impleaded as defendant No. 2. Upon completion of the investigation, final report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') was filed against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 423 and 426 IPC. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-

3. Upon conclusion of the evidence by the prosecution, the statement of the petitioner-accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC and the entire incriminating evidence was put to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to lead evidence in defence. The following evidence was lead in defence by the petitioner:-

4. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the respective parties, the trial Court came to a conclusion that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the petitioner and that the accused incorporated wrong facts and concealed the information regarding the prior agreement to sell executed by the petitioner with Naresh Dhiman. Despite being aware of the said prior agreement to sell, the petitioner induced the complainant to pay the earnest money in lieu of the land. The petitioner was thus convicted by the judgment dated 20.11.2013 and was sentenced to undergo the following sentences vide order dated 22.11.2013:-

 In case of default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo RI for a period of one month. The sentence awarded to the convict shall run concurrently and the period in custody already undergone by the convict during trial or investigation shall be set off as per the provisions of Section 428 CrPC.

5. Aggrieved of the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Sonepat and vide judgment dated 01.06.2017, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that no offence of cheating was committed by the petitioner and that in the civil suit filed by th