( 1 ) BABU Khan, the applicant in this criminal revision, has been, convicted by a first class magistrate of Budaun for an offence under Section 419,. P. C. and has been sentenced to nine months R.. and a fine of Rs. 100/ -. His conviction and sentence were confirmed in appeal by the Second Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge of Budaun.

( 2 ) THE prosecution allegations were that on 9-6-1959 the accused-applicant came to the village of Shekhupur, pretending to be Dr. Mohan Lal, the famous eye specialist of Aligarh, and induced the complainant Zalim to allow him to perform an operation on the right eye of Zalims 12-year old son Rajpal. The boy had previously been shown to a certain Dr. Gupta, who had declared his eye to be incurable but the accused assured Zalim that he could restore sight to the eye by performing the operation. The accused made an incision in the boys eye-lid and extracted some whitish matter and then bandaged up the eye and told Zalim to bring Rs. 32/- to his camp at ujhan. Next day Zalim accordingly went to Ujhani but could not fhld any trace of the camp that had been referred to by the accused. Eventually he met the accused, who said that he had taken a house on hire and asked for payment of Rs, 32/-; but by now Zalims suspicions had been aroused and he took the accused off to the police station and lodged a report.

( 3 ) THE accused-applicant denied that he had ever personated Dr. Mohan Lal of Aligarh. He admitted, however, that he carried on the business of treating eye disorders as a kind of unregistered practitioner and that he had performed an operation on the eye of Zalims son rajpal. According to him, there was a tumour on the eye-lid, which he had removed; but after the operation, when he demanded his fee of Rs. 20/-, Zalim avoided payment and in Ujhani next day when he repeated the demand a quarrel took place, and he was then taken off to the police station and implicated on a false charge.

( 4 ) THE defence plea that an operation for tumour had been performed has been disproved by medical evidence. The prosecution allegations on. the other hand have been fully substantiated by the testimony of a number of witnesses, who have been believed by the courts below, and I see no sufficient reason to differ from the conclusions that have been arrived at on questions of fact.

( 5 ) THE main point to be seen in this case, however, is whether any offence under Section 419,. P. C. has been made out or not. Personation is of course clearly established, but the question is whether the necessary ingredients of cheating as defined in Section 415,. P. C. have been proved. The definition of cheating given in Section 415 runs as follows:

"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 person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat" in the present case it is clear that the accused Babu Khan deceived the complainant Zalim by pretending to be Dr. Mohan Lal of Aligarh and intentionally induced him to allow an operation to be performed on his son Rajpal, which he would not have allowed to be performed if he had not been so deceived. But before the offence of cheating can be made out it has further to be shown that the act which the person deceived was induced to do by the deception practised on him caused or was likely to cause "damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property". No harm has been caused to reputation or property in this case. Damage or harm in body has been caused to Rajpal who was operated on; but by the definition quoted above it is necessary that the harm should be caused to the person deceived not to any on