THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.821 of 2004 O R D E R: This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 01.04.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2001 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, modifying the conviction to under Section 417 IPC instead of Section 420 IPC and the petitioner/accused imposed to pay the fine of Rs.21,000/- and in default of fine amount he shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 06.12.1999 at 4.00 PM PW.1 Lopally Yadagiri Rao lodged complaint before the police station stating that in the year 1994 he joined as member in Margasudha Finance branch at Kamareddy through their villager Putta Venkat Reddy ie., the accused herein and paid Rs.200/- every month in the lucky draw, in total he paid Rs.5,000/-. Along with PW.1, others by name Wadla Yellesham, Kumiwadla Vanja, Vadla Vinodha, Ashavva, Wadla Jyamma, Kondam Lasumavva, Neela Laxmi Narsavva, Batha Chinna Yellavva, Nayni Chinna Balreddy, Nayini Padmavva, Saduga Yellavva, Bomma Beeravva, Bomma Bheeravva and Surabhi Sreemathi paid the amounts to the accused. The accused promised them, if Sudha Finance dupe the amount, he will pay the same after five years. On that promise, all the said persons paid the said amounts to the accused. Since the people of Sudha Finance left the place, the above persons approached the accused for repayment of the said amount, but the accused stated that he does not know anything and thereby cheated the above persons. On complaint, a case under Section 420 IPC is registered against the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present petitioner is not at all involved in the crime and he is only an agent working under the Sudha Finance Company, that the entire money was paid by the witnesses through the petitioner herein to the said Sudha Finance Company, but the prosecution failed to add them as accused and wrongly prosecuted the present petitioner as an accused. This Court perused the entire records and also the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is evident from the records that the present petitioner is working under Sudha Finance Company and that he used to collect money on behalf of Sudha Finance Company and deposit the same to Sudha Finance Company. Further none of the receipts issued by the Finance Company indicate the petitioner as the responsible person and the only evidence available against the petitioner herein is that he promised that if the said Sudha Finance Company failed to return the money, then he will pay the money to the aggrieved parties. The said contention by the witnesses seems to be an improvement during the course of trial. The present facts and circumstances of the case will not squarely attract the offence of cheating punishable under Section 417 IPC. Section 415 IPC, defines cheating reads as under: “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’.” The entire reading of the evidence does not disclose that the present petitioner had an intention to deceive the depositors at the inception and since the said Sudha Finance Company closed the company without paying the money to public, the present petitioner cannot be held responsible for the said offence. In view of the same, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court is hereby set aside and, if any, fine amount paid by the petitioner is directed to be returned to the petitioner. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. _________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 23rd June, 2010. PNV