THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Crl.R.C.No.501 of 2002 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment, dated 04.01.2002, in C.C.No.244 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Satyavedu, Chittoor District, whereunder and whereby, respondents 2 to 4/A1 to A3 were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120 I.P.C. and accordingly acquitted them. The revision petitioner is the de facto complainant. (2) The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision may be stated as follows: (3) On 27.01.1988, A2 and A3, who were close associates of A1 approached the petitioner - P.W.1 to mortgage the Flour Mill and Oil Decarticator of A1 and stated that there were no loans with regard to the said Mill. Accepting their proposal, P.W.1 paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- by executing a simple mortgage deed, Ex.P1, on 27.01.1988. Later, P.W.1 came to know that the Flour Mill and Oil Decarticator were already mortgaged to Andhra Pradesh State Finance Corporation, Tirupati Branch, (for short ‘the Corporation’) and that though A1 to A3 were having knowledge about the said fact, they suppressed the same, conspired together and cheated P.W.1. (4) After examination of the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. charges for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120 I.P.C. were framed as against them. When the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. (5) To substantiate the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5 and on behalf of the accused neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. (6) The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the property that was mortgaged in both the mortgage deeds are not one and the same and accordingly, the accused were acquitted. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed by the complainant. (7) Now the point for determination is whether the impugned judgment is correct, legal and proper? (8) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that A1 to A3 suppressing the earlier mortgage deed executed in favour of the Corporation, created another mortgage deed, Ex.P.1 in favour of P.W.1, and cheated the complainant (P.W- 1), thereby, causing financial loss to him to a tune of Rs.5,000/- and therefore, she prays to set aside the impugned judgment. (9) The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the trial Court after elaborate evidence on record, rightly found the accused not guilty as there was no evidence to show that they conspired together or that they have cheated the complainant and as such, the impugned judgment does not call for interference by this Court. (10) There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless a finding is shown to be illegal, incorrect and improper, normally this Court would not interfere with the judgment under challenge. It is equally well settled that this Court exercising the revisional jurisdiction, ordinarily, would not re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the trial Court. (11) The offence of cheating requires that there was an inducement made by the accused and such inducement must be a fraudulent and dishonest one with a view 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. (12) It is the case of the complainant that A1 had already mortgaged the mill and Oil Decorticator to the Corporation. P.W.4, who is the Manager of the Corporation, stated that A1 was indebted to the Corporation to a tune of Rs.2,53,531/- as on 01.04.1996. The evidence of P.W.4 is very clear that A1 obtained a loan of Rs.1,05,000/- for the purpose of installing Decarticator in M/s Sri Chalathamma Rice and Decorticating Mills. P.W.4 did not produce any record of hypothecation deed alleged to have been executed by A1. Ex.P5 is the letter, dated 13.08.1996, addressed to the Station House Officer, Varadaiahpalem, by P.W.4., which contained the schedule. The schedule of the property mentioned in Ex.P5 is M/s Sri Chalathamma Rice and Decorticating Mills, which is hypothecated property, whereas, the evidence of P.W.4 would go to show that A1 mortgaged the Decarticator to the Corporation under a registered simple mortgage deed. But, in Ex.P3 -complaint, it is stated that A1 mortgaged the Flour Mill and Decarticator in favour of the petitioner under Ex.P1. The trial Court gave a finding that Ex.P1 revealed that A1 mortgaged the Rice Mill under construction in the site admeasuring from East to West 35 feet and North to South 22 feet in Survey No.105/1. In Ex.P1, there is no mention of the name of M/s Sri Chalathamma Rice and Decorticating Mills, which A1 mortgaged to the Corporation. Therefore, basing on the evidence on record, the trial Court found that there was no evidence to show that the said M/s Sri Chalathamma Rice and Decorticating Mills and the property mortgaged to P.W1 under Ex.P1, are one and the same. (13) There cannot be any dispute that suppression of material fact is a deception within the meaning of Section 415 I.P.C. If really, the accused suppressed the earlier mortgage executed in favour of the Corporation and executed Ex.P1 in favour of P.W.1 in respect of selfsame property, then it can be said that there was material suppression of fact. P.W.1 must show that the property mortgaged to the Corporation is same property that was mortgaged to him under Ex.P1. Unless the same is established by the prosecution, it would not amount to suppression of fact. If the property covered by the mortgage deed in favour of the Corporation and the property mortgaged under Ex.P1 are different and the distinct, the suppression of fact does not arise. (14) There cannot be any dispute that it is for the complainant to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, it must be shown that the earlier mortgage in respect of a property, said to have been executed in favour of the Corporation, was in respect of the same property covered by Ex.P1, which is executed in favour of P.W.1. (15) Admittedly, P.W.1 came to know about the earlier mortgage in the year 1991. But, he has not filed any complaint till 1996. There was abnormal delay of five years in lodging the complaint and no explanation is forthcoming as to why he did not set the criminal law into motion. (16) Mere breach of contract does not amount to a criminal prosecution, unless the accused entertained the intention of cheating dishonestly or fraudulently from the inception. P.W.1 was not induced at the time of making promise or at the time of agreement or at the time of execution of Ex.P1, mortgage deed. There was no evidence to show that the accused entertained the dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time of execution of Ex.P1. Similarly, there were no circumstances to infer that the dishonest or fraudulent intention was entertained by the accused from the beginning. Therefore, the trial Court, after elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly found the accused not guilty of the charges levelled against them. None of the findings is shown to be incorrect or illegal or improper. In the absence of the same, the judgment under challenge needs no interference. (17) The revision is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. ________________ K.C.BHANU, J Dt: 17.11.2009 kdl