To establish cheating under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intention to cheat from the very inception, which can be inferred from all circumstances, including their conduct and failure to fulfill the promise.

( 1 ) BOTH these revisions, which have been heard together are directed against the judgment and order passed on 14/5/1982 by Mr. U. S. Pandey, the then IV Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur. The learned Judge was disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1982, which had been filed in his Court against the judgment and order passed on 22/12/1981 by the 1st Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mirzapur in Case No. 69 of 1981. The learned Munsif Magistrate convicted Shyam Sunder Gupta and Raj Kumar Gupta under Section 420 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced each one of them to one years rigorous imprisonment. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but altered the sentence by imposing a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each one of the accused persons and in default making the defaulter liable to three months rigorous imprisonment, and also punishing them with sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court. The contention on behalf of the revisionists of Criminal Appeal No. 915 of 1982 namely Shyam Sunder Gupta and Raj Kumar Gupta is that the order of conviction in wrong and should not have been passed and cannot be justified, as no case under Sections 420 read with 34 Indian Penal Code is made out. The contention on behalf of Ramapati Pandey, who is the complainant revisionist of Criminal Revision No. 1536 of 1982, is that the sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is inadequate and should be enhanced. I have heard the learned counsel on both the sides. It is undoubted that so far as points of fact are concerned, they stand concluded by the findings of two Courts below, and this Court will not interfere with the same, but only question of law can be considered. So far as the question of enhancement of sentence is concerned, it is a legal point and will have to be considered in the light of the circumstances of the case. The established case is that Ramapati Pandey got a son Rama Shankar. This young man was out of job and so Ramapati Pandey was keen to see that he was somehow fixed. Through the intervertion of a common friend namely Chinta Mani Tewari, he came into contact with Shyam Sunder Gupta and his son Raj Kumar Gupta. The first meeting look place in village Baraudba. During the course of subsequent meetings Ramapati Pandey made a mention to Raj Kumar Gupta and his father Shyam Sunder Gupta about the unemployed state of his son and about his anxiety in this matter. It is said that the two accused persons told Ramapati Pandey that it would be better if he put his son Rama shankar in Coal Business. When Ramapati Pandey expressed that he had no experience of such a business he was informed that the accused persons were familiar with certain high ups of Bina Colliery and that they would try to obtain a quota or license of Coal Depot for Rama Shankar. They also gave out that a sum of R. I. 3000/- will be needed for this purpose. Ramapati Pandey expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount and said that be was only possessed of Rs. 2000/ -. The two accused persons agreed to do his job for that money and ultimately in presence of a number of persons including Tilakdbari, Chintamani Tewari and Ramashankar, a sum of Rs. 2000/- was paid to Raj Kumar Gupta and he counted the money and banded it over to his father. Ramapati Pandey understood that the accused persons will try to obtain for Ramashankar from Bina Colliery some sort of license to run a Coal Depot and to get a quota fixed. It is contended that they did not do so and also did not return the money but made themselves scarce and were not available inspite of repeated attempts by Ramapati Pandey. It was only after a long time that Ramapati Pandey by chance met Shyam Sunder Gupta at the Railway Station on 15/4/1981, when he demanded his money back, Shyam Sunder Gupta told him that there was no such money transaction between them and that he should keep quiet otherwise he might be properly dealt with.