The prosecution must prove fraudulent or dishonest inducement, intention to deceive (mens rea), and the case beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt in cases of cheating under Section 415 IPC and Section 420 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. The petitioner is a convict who has assailed the correctness of the impugned judgments passed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court convicting him under Section 420 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

2. Normally, while hearing the revision petition under Section 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence unless the attention of the court is drawn to any substantial error or perversity in the impugned judgments. However, on the first reading of the impugned judgments, this Bench was prompted to examine the case deeply, although, learned counsel representing the petitioner had addressed the Court only on the aspect of reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone.

3. In short, the case of the prosecution is that the FIR No. 160, dated 10.12.2015, was registered on the basis of an application moved on 13.03.2015 by Mohan Lal to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, alleging that the petitioner defrauded his son Vijay Kumar of Rs.1,00,000/- on the false pretext of sending and settling him in Italy. After receipt of the amount, neither the petitioner sent his son to Italy nor returned the amount. The first informant had paid the above said amount after selling a plot measuring 8 marlas for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. The first informant has also spent Rs.1,50,000/- on efforts to recover the amount.

4. The police, after completion of the investigation, filed a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., a copy whereof was supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Judicial Magistrate, finding that a prima facie case is made out, framed the charge under Section 420 IPC.

5. The prosecution has examined the following witnesses to prove its case:

i) PW.1 Mohan Lal (first informant);

ii) PW.2 Balwinder Singh, who deposed that his brother Resham Singh has purchased a plot measuring 8 marlas from the first informant.

iii) PW.3 Jasbir Lal, appeared to corroborate the case of the prosecution. He claims that when Mohan Lal paid the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner, he along with Vijay Kumar were present.

iv) PW.4 Resham Singh is the purchaser (vendee) of the plot from the first informant vide sale deed dated 14.12.2009.

v) PW.5 Bharpur Singh has proved the settlement Ex.PB. being its attesting witness.

vi) PW.6 Gurdial Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, had investigated the case as an Investigating Officer.

vii) PW.7 Gurminder Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, proved memo(s) of arrest-cum-intimation and personal search of the accused.

viii) PW.8 Jyoti Brahmswaroop Bali, Registration Clerk, has been examined to prove the sale deed dated 14.12.2009.

6. Statement of the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

7. As already noticed, the Judicial Magistrate found that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against which the appeal has also been dismissed.

8. This Court has perused the record requisitioned from the courts below.

9. Before this Bench proceeds to examine the case, it is important to note that the offence of cheating is defined in Section 415 IPC whereas Section 420 IPC provides that if the offence of cheating on dishonest inducement in delivery of property is proved, the accused shall be liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. The aforesaid provisions are extracted as under:-

“415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that