H.N. Kapoor, J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against an order framing charge Under Section 418 IPC against the Applicant. The following charge -sheet had been framed: That you on 6 -8 -68 at place Shikohabad cheated Co -operative Society Shikohabad by doing an act to wit by obtaining sugar on misrepresentation and fraud with the knowledge that you were thereby likely to cause wrongful loss to the public of the circle of Nyaya Panchayat Aronj, P.S. Shikohabad whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating related you were bound by law or a legal contract to protect and that you thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 418 IPC and within my cognizance.
(2.) IT is clear from the wordings of the charge that sugar was taken on misrepresentation from the Co -operative Society, Shikohabad for distributing to the persons within the circle of Nyaya Panchayat to whom damage was ultimately caused as it could not obtain sugar. No doubt, under the term of the licence the Applicant might have been bound to distribute sugar to the cardholders for whom it was meant. But the fact remains that so far as the Go -operative Society was concerned, the transaction was complete. No damage was caused to the Society but damage was caused to some of its members. The Go -operative Society is a different entity from some members of that Society. The Co -operative Society thus itself was not cheated. In the case of Hari Sao v. State of Bihar : AIR 1970 SC 843 it was held that though a valuable security (railway receipt) was wrongly obtained from the Station Master on false representation that the bags contained chilies while they only contained chaff, the railway authorities were ultimately not cheated as they did not suffer any damage and that no offence Under Section 420 IPC was made out. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Jaswant Lal Nathalal : AIR 1968 SC 700 their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the charges Under Sections 405 and 409 IPC were not proved against a cement contractor who took cement from the Govt. Deptt. after paying its price on the representation that the same would be used for certain construction work of the Govt. It was held that the cement contractor might have been liable for breach of the condition of the licence or under any law relating to cement control but he could not be prosecuted Under Sections 405 and 409 IPC. It can be said in the present case also that the Applicant might be liable under some sugar control order or for the breach of the terms of the licence. But he could not be prosecuted Under Section 418 IPC.
(3.) IN the result, the revision is allowed and the charge Under Section 418 IPC, as framed, by the learned Magistrate is quashed. It shall, however, be open to the prosecution to proceed according to law in case any other offence is made out.;