- (1.) KUNDAN Singh J. List has been revised. No body is present on behalf of the applicant to press this revision.
(2.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 21-5-84 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhansi, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1983, maintain ing the conviction of the applicant under Sec. 420, I. P. C. However, the sentence of 2 years R. I. was reduced to the sentence till rising the court and a fine of Rs. 20,000 and if the amount of fine was realised, a sum of Rs. 18,000 was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation. The applicant executed an agree ment transferring the truck No. U. TD. 1328 in favour of the complainant Satya Narain for Rs. 70,000. He also executed a receipt on 26-3-75 admitting the payment of Rs. 14,000 in cash. Rest of the amount of Rs. 56,000 along with its interest in all Rs. 87,920, was to be paid in 35 instalments. The first instal ment was to start from 10. 5. 75. In default of payment of any three instalments, the ap plicant was given the right to take over the possession of the truck in question. It was also agreed that the com plainant was liable to pay all the taxes from 26-3-75 and the complainant paid instal ments amounting to Rs. 35,168. The Manager Trilok Singh of Sardar Finance Corporation, Kanpur took possession of the truck on 13-9-76 alleging that it belonged to them and then the complainant came to know the real owner of the truck as Sardar Finance Corporation and the ac cused had cheated him by transferring the truck alleging himself to be its owner and thereby induced him to make payment of Rs. 49,168.
(3.) THE matter was investigated and after completion of investigation the ap plicant was charge sheeted. During the trial the prosecution examined Kailash Gupta P. W. 1, driver of the truck, P. W. 2 Satya Narain complainant and P. W. 3 Bisham Singh, besides other witnesses who were of formal nature. Learned C. J. M. by his judgment and order dated 5-8-83 believed the evidence and held the applicant guilty of the offence under Sec. 420, I. P. C. and sentenced the applicant to two years. R. I. with a fine of Rs. 20,000. In default of payment of fine, the applicant was directed to further undergo R. I. for one year. In case the amount of fine is realised, a sum of Rs. 18,000 was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensa tion. The applicant riled an appeal before the Sessions Court against his conviction and sentence awarded by the court below. The Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal by judgment and order dated 21-5-84, main taining the conviction under Sec. 420, I. P. C. and sentence of two years R. I. was reduced to the sentence till rising of the court. The fine of Rs. 20,000 imposed by the court below was confirmed with a direction that a sum of Rs. 18,000 out of the amount of fine if realised was to be paid to the complainant as compensation. From the judgment of the courts below it is the categorical finding of the courts below that the applicant had cheated the complainant without disclosing the name of the real owner. It was argued before the court below that at the most the applicant could have been dealt with in civil proceedings and the amount could have been realised by the complainant in those civil proceedings. But besides the civil liability the applicant is also liable for criminal prosecution. Nothing could appear to me perverse or illegal in the judgment of the courts below calling for interference in the revisional jurisdiction.;