THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Crl.R.C.No.1349 of 2004 ORDER On the basis of the report given by the petitioner- complainant, the Station House Officer, Kodad Police Station, registered a case against the first respondent-accused for the offence under Section 420 IPC. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.281 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad, for the offence under Section 420 IPC. The Court below, having considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and Exs.P1 to P8, found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 420 IPC and accordingly, acquitted him. The State has not chosen to file the appeal. Hence, the petitioner-de facto complainant filed this revision under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the first respondent approached the petitioner and purchased edible oil on credit and issued two cheques in favour of Vijayalaxmi Oil Products, Kodad, for a sum of Rs.45,000/-each on 15.01.1999 and 15.02.1999 towards purchase of said oil. When the said cheques were presented in the Bank, they were dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Hence, the petitioner filed the said complaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below erred in acquitting the accused. According to the petitioner, the cheques, which were issued by the first respondent, were dishonoured and as such, it necessitated him to file a complaint under Section 420 IPC. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced for the reason that there is no element of cheating to attract the provision under Section 420 IPC. As it is a case of bouncing of cheques, the provision under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be attracted. In fact, this Court as well as the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions held that to attract the provisions of Section 420 IPC, the complainant shall establish the dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner at the inception. When the same is not proved, it cannot be said that the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 420 IPC. Accordingly, I see no merit in this revision and the revision is, accordingly, dismissed. ___________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:03.02.2011 sj