CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1600 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 13, 2011 Anil Sachar .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Mehtab Singh Chicha, Advocate for Mr. M.K. Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has impugned the judgement passed by the Appellate Court reversing the finding returned by the Trial Court, which had convicted respondent Nos.2 and 3 for an offence under Section 420 IPC. The Appellate Court, however, has acquitted the private respondents by giving them benefit of doubt. Noticing the facts in brief, the case of the petitioner is that Anil Sachar, Partner of M/s Rati Woolen CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1600 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: Mills, Ludhiana, wrote to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, for registration of a case against the private respondents for criminal breach of trust and cheating against M/s Shree Nath Spinners Private Ltd. and its sister concern M/s A.T.Overseas. M/s Rati Woolen Mills is a partnership concern. The private respondents approached the petitioner-Mill, seeking purchase of yarn, fibre, tops, wastes and knitted clothes etc., which the petitioner supplied. The private respondents made the payment promptly except for a sum of `5,66,274/-. Because of this business dealing, ultimately it is alleged, that a sum of `2,94,21,901-43P became due. The respondents issued certain cheques, which were also dishonoured and on this basis, it was alleged that the respondents had cheated the petitioner-complainant and had also misappropriated the amount. The allegations of offence under Sections 406, 420 IPC accordingly were alleged against them. On the basis of evidence, the trial Court convicted the private respondents. They, however, have now been acquitted by the Appellate Court. No charge under Section 406 IPC was framed against the respondents. The Appellate Court, in my view, has rightly considered all aspects of the case and evidence. The Appellate Court, on the basis of various judgements, has rightly noticed that guilty intention is essential ingredient of offence of cheating. Mens rea on CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1600 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: the part of accused, therefore, must be established because of which he can be convicted for an offence of cheating. The issue which requires consideration in this case also is whether the private respondents had fraudulently induced with the purpose to deceive the petitioner- complainant. Actual deception of the complainant with dishonest inducement , thereby causing wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to the accused. After noticing the requirement of law, the Appellate Court found that primarily it was a business dealing, which led to accumulation of some liability. The respondents had been making some prompt payments for earlier transactions and in this background, view is possible that there was no intention to cheat at the initial stage. Thus, fraudulent intention on the part of the respondents could not be established. The view, which has been formed by the Appellate Court, is possible one and would not call for interference merely because some other view may also be possible. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgement passed by learned Appellate Court and would dismiss the revision petition. December 13, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE