The main legal point established in the judgment is that the offense under Section 420 of IPC requires the essential ingredients of cheating to be established, and in this case, the court found that the complainant was not deceived by the accused in the alleged sale.

JUDGMENT

M.K. Mudgal, J.

Heard on admission.

With the consent of parties, the matter is being finally heard and the record perused.

1. The petitioner-complainant has filed this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 25.6.2009 passed by the Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in Cr. Appeal 54 of 2008 acquitting the respondent No. 1 Asharam from the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

2. The facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that on 16.5.2002, the petitioner-complainant lodged a report at PS Bhander, District Datia against the respondent No. 1-Asharam and Nathuram (now dead) alleging that in Village Chandraul in Ward No. 3 Shankar Ji temple is situated, nearby it a plot of Government land admeasuring 45 ft. x 25 ft. was lying vacant. Through the Government land complainant and villagers used to come to Shankar Jai temple. The accused persons were friends and they used to conspire and illegally usurp Government land. On 31.12.2001, Nathuram became seller and sold the said land to Asharam and prepared forged documents relating to the said land and made forged registry. Respondent No. 1 is neither having title to nor having possession of the said land. Nathuram had no right to sell the said land and he knew that the said land belonged to the Government. On 07.01.2002, complainant went to Shankar Ji temple and saw the accused was digging foundation with a spade. He restrained him for doing so, then the accused-Asharam said he had purchased the land and the complainant had no right to pass through it. In this regard, the complainant submitted a complaint under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. before the S.D.M. which is pending for consideration. Thereafter, the complainant obtained certified copy of registry from of office of Registrar and came to know that land ad-measuring 25x25 ft. was purchased by the respondent/accused from Nathuram who had no title to or interest in the property for sale. Accused-Nathuram and accused Asharam have illegally usurped the Government land by dishonestly preparing the forged document. The police took no action on the complaint lodged by the complainant, therefore, a complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhander under Sections 468, 120-B & 420 of IPC. On 16.04.2002, the Judicial Magistrate First Class took cognizance of the complaint and directed the police station for registration of the case and to file charge-sheet. Thereafter, Police Station Bhander registered a criminal case bearing Crime No. 77/2002 under Section 420, 468 & 120-B of IPC against the accused Asharam and Nathuram and after investigation filed the charge-sheet.

3. Learned trial court framed charge under Section 420 of IPC against the accused persons. During trial, accused Nathuram died, therefore his name was deleted. The learned trial court after recording evidence of the witnesses, perusing the documents brought on record and having heard learned counsel for the parties, convicted the accused/respondent No. 1 under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years RI with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondents No. 1 preferred a appeal before the appellate court which was allowed and the respondent No. 1 was acquitted under Section 420 of IPC. Hence, this revision.

5. On perusal of the record, indisputably, it is evident that the disputed land which was sold by Nathuram to the respondent Asharam was not of the ownership of the petitioner/complainant. As per allegations of the complainant, the said land belongs to the Government, owing to which, Nathuram had no right to sell the said property. In this manner, it is inferred that the petitioner was not cheated by neither Nathuram nor respondent Asharam in any manner and the sale deed dated 31.12.2001 executed by Nathuram was in his own name, in the said circumstances, prima-facie it cannot