Bhargava, J. - (1.) The appellant Jai Mangal, and two other persons named Baohoo Singh and Prabhu were prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 420, Penal. Code. It was alleged that, on one occasion, they cheated Shet Khan and his son, Shirin Khun and, on another occasion, they cheated Ram Narain and induced them to deliver big sums of money and there were two separate charges in respect thereof. The appellant as well as the other accused denied the allegation and contended that they had been falsely implicated owing to enmity. They were tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Kanpur with the aid of a jury, who returned a unanimous verdict of guilty against the appellant and of not guilty against the other two accused. The appellant was, accordingly, convicted in respect of be to the charges under Section 420, Penal Code, and sentenced to an aggregate term of five years, rigoroua imprisonment and the other two accused were acquitted.
(2.) The appellant's learned Counsel has, in the first place, contended that the trial Judge did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 297, Criminal P. O., in so far as in his charge he did not lay down the law by which the jury were to be guided and the trial was consequently vitiated.
(3.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Crown has contended that the learned Judge explained the law to the jury white delivering the charge and there was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 297, Criminal P. C. At the end of the charge the learned Judge stated: I have explained to you the law necessary for the case, and have read over to you the definition of offence of cheating. In support of big argument the Crown counsel pointed out the following passages in the charge: (1) It may be noted that in the writing Ex. P1. the accused Jai Mangal and Prabhoo seem to have confessed their guilt, and to have given out the name of Bachoo Singh as their accomplice.... I do not think that much can be made of this admission or extra-judioial confession against the accused Jai Mangal and Frabhu, much less as against the third accused Bachohoo Singh whom they had named as their accomplice." (2) "I do not think that much importance attaches to the identification proceedings in this case.... The legal position is that mere identification is not enough for conviction, and there must in addition be direct and circumstantial evidence of the commission of an offence by a particular accused without any doubt before he can be convicted." (3) "It is for the prosecution to prove the case to the hilt against each individual accused.;