The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and credible oral evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for cheating under Section 420 of IPC, and the court's power to modify the sentence and direct compensation to the victims based on the circumstances of the case.

This revisional application under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.01.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar in Criminal Appeal No. 15(4)/2011, whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.11.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kailashahar, North Tripura in Case No. G.R. 327 of 2010 has been affirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Majumder for the accused/convict petitioner and learned Additional P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State respondent.

3. Prosecution case is that the accused petitioner, Bikash Deb, giving an assurance to provide job in a Paper Mill, in the State of Assam, took money from the witnesses, i.e.,Rs.7,500/- from PW1, i.e., the informant, Rs.8,500/- from PW2, Rs.5,000/- from PW3 and Rs.7,000/- from PW4. The payment was made on 20.03.2010 in the house of the informant, PW1, Sri Brajeswar Sen in presence of PWs 5 and 6. The accused demanded Rs.11,000/- per head for providing job and the part payment by those witnesses were made with the assurance that the rest amount will be paid later on. Subsequently, the accused disappeared and neither provided job nor returned the money. Thereafter, PW1, Brajeswar Sen, lodged FIR on 26.08.2010 and it was registered under Section 420 of IPC, i.e., Kumarghat P.S. Case No. 67/2010. Investigation was done and charge sheet was submitted against the accused. In due course learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kailashahar framed charge against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.

4. Prosecution examined seven witnesses and out of them, PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 are the persons, who were cheated by the accused, who has made the payment of the amount as stated hereinabove. PWs 5 and 6 are the independent witnesses before whom the payment was made.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the accused did not adduce any defence evidence. Defence case is nothing but denial of the prosecution case. The trial Court found the accused guilty of the charge framed against him and sentenced him to suffer S.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for three months.

6. Aggrieved, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.15(4)/2011 before the learned Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar and the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment dated 05.01.2012 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

7. Hence, this revisional application.

8. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submitted that except oral evidence there is no document to show that the accused had actually taken any such amount as alleged from PWs 1 to 4. In the absence of any documentary evidence, since the allegation is of giving and taking of money with the assurance of giving a job, the prosecution story cannot stand and is liable to be disbelieved. He has further submitted that the place of occurrence, i.e., place of payment of the amount has not been proved and so, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court would give the benefit of doubt to the accused petitioner. He has also submitted that the punishment is excessive and harsh and the offence is not so serious that the accused should not be given the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

9. Learned Additional P.P., on the other hand, submitted that the evidence of PWs has not been shaken in any manner. The oral evidence is cogent, consistent and credible, which do not deserve any interference by this revisional Court. The punishment is not at all harsh and the accused since cheated the witnesses giving false assurance of providing job, he does not deserve any lenient view and does not deserve the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act.

10. While exercising the power of revision, this Court is not ordinarily required