JUDGMENT H.P. Asthana, J. - This is an application in revision by one Nathimal who has been convicted under Sections 465 and 417 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to two months' simple imprisonment u/s 465 I.P.C. and to a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default to two months' simple imprisonment u/s 417 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case was as follows: On the 27th of October, 1950 the applicant purchased jewellery worth Rs. 236/- and odd from the complainant Radhey Lal of Agra and promised to send the price later on from Jaipur where he carried on business. He sent a registered insured cover for Rs. 225/- which was delivered to the complainant on 4th November, 1950. When it was opened it was found to contain currency notes worth Rs. 125/- only. Thereupon the complainant immediately informed the postman and also sent a telegram and a letter enquiring from the accused as to why he had sent Rs. 125/- only when the insured cover was for Rs. 225/-. In reply the applicant said that he had in fact sent Rs. 225/- and not Rs. 125/- as alleged by the complainant. Thereafter a complaint was filed against the applicant on the allegation that he had sent only Rs. 125/- but had insured the envelope containing the aforesaid amount for Rs. 225/- and thereby had committed the offence of forgery and cheating. 3. The applicant denied that he had put the currency notes worth Rs. 125/- in the envelope or that he had insured it for Rs. 225/-. His case was that he had given the entire money to his son and had asked him to send it in an insured cover to the complainant and the mistake if any was committed by his son. Both the lower courts after a consideration of the evidence produced in the case found that only Rs. 125/- had been sent in the envelope to the complainant but the envelope had been insured for Rs. 225/- and thereby a fraud had been committed on the complainant. Accordingly the applicant was convicted on both the charges. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that even if the entire prosecution evidence was accepted as correct the charges u/s 465 and 417 I.P.C. had not been established against the applicant. 225/- and thereby a fraud had been committed on the complainant. Accordingly the applicant was convicted on both the charges. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that even if the entire prosecution evidence was accepted as correct the charges u/s 465 and 417 I.P.C. had not been established against the applicant. The offence of forgery which is punishable u/s 465 I.P.C. has been defined in Section 463 and runs as follows: Whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property or to enter into any express or implied contract or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. 4. Section 464 defines, when a person is said to make a false document: First: Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or Secondly: Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part thereof, after it has been made or executed either by himself or by any other person whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly: Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. 5. Explanation 1 to this section provides that a man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery. 5. Explanation 1 to this section provides that a man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery. Explanation 2 provides that the making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery. 6. In the present case the only Charge against the applicant is that he actually sent currency notes worth Rs. 125/- in the envelop but he insured the envelope for Rs. 225/- instead of Rs. 125/-. Even if this allegation is accepted as correct it is not clear to me how the charge of forgery u/s 463 is made out against the applicant. I may mention here that there is no evidence on the record that it was the applicant who had actually put the sum of Rs. 125/- in the envelope and had insured the envelope for Rs. 225/-. An examination of the definition of forgery as given above clearly indicates that none of the ingredients which is requisite for the offence u/s 463 is present in this case, it is therefore not clear to me how the lower courts have found that the charge u/s 463 (forgery) has been established against the applicant in this case. 7. Coming now to the offence of cheating u/s 415 I.P.C. which is punishable u/s 417 I.P.C. I am of opinion that this charge also is not established against the applicant as there is nothing on the record to show that it was the applicant who had put in the envelope Rs. 125/- and had insured it for Rs. 225/- in order to deceive the complainant. The mere fact that an envelope containing currency notes worth Rs. 125/- and insured for Rs. 225/- was sent from the firm of the applicant is not sufficient to prove that it was the applicant who had put the money in the envelope and had insured it for a bigger amount. It may be mentioned here that Brijmohan Lal, son of the applicant was examined in this case and he stated that it was he who had put the money in the envelope and had got it insured for Rs. 225/-. It may be mentioned here that Brijmohan Lal, son of the applicant was examined in this case and he stated that it was he who had put the money in the envelope and had got it insured for Rs. 225/-. There is no doubt that it was very difficult for the prosecution to prove by any direct evidence that it was the applicant who had put the money in the envelope and had insured it for Rs. 225/-. I, however, do not think that merely because of this difficulty the applicant can be convicted of cheating. It could have been possible for the prosecution to get the writing on the envelope compared with that of the applicant and if the two tallied that have been a good evidence to show that the insured cover was actually sent by the applicant. We doubt there is a strong suspicion against the applicant but I do not think that suspicion by itself is sufficient proof. 8. On the question of law there is divergence of opinion between the various High Courts. The offence of cheating is defined in Section 415, and runs thus: Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces any person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to 'cheat'. 9. There is an explanation to this section which provides that a dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. 10. The question which arises for consideration is whether a person who insures a cover for a much bigger amount than the money Inside it or sends waste paper in the cover after so insuring it induces the addressee to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not; so deceived and whether such an act or omission on his part causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the addressee in body, mind, reputation or property. 11. In Raman Behari Roy v. Emperor ILR 50 Cal. 11. In Raman Behari Roy v. Emperor ILR 50 Cal. 849 it was held by a Division Bench that a person who sent an insured cover purporting to contain Government Currency notes but which on receipt by the addressee were found to contain only a letter advising the despatch of notes and pieces of waste papers was not guilty of cheating. The reasoning behind this decision was that what the person deceived had been induced to do was that he had signed a receipt acknowledging the delivery of a cover and] not the receipt of any sum of money alleged to be contained in the cover. 12. In Tula Ram v. Emperor 21 A.L.J.R. 865 the accused in repayment of a loan sent an insured cover to the complainant which on being opened by the complainant was found to contain Khilafat Bonds instead of Government Currency notes. It was held by Sulaiman, J. that no offence u/s 417 read with Section 511 I.P.C. was committed and the mere fact that a cover was insured for a certain amount did not raise any presumption in law that the cover contained the necessary amount of Government Currency notes. 13. In Kunju v. Emperor AIR 1927 Mad. 199 the accused sent an insured packet to the complainant purporting to contain currency notes in settlement of debt and gave acknowledgment of the receipt of the packet. The packet was found to contain waste paper. It was held that the accused was neither guilty of cheating nor attempt to cheat as it was not enough to say that the signed acknowledgment was likely to be used as to cause damage; the act of signing itself would be likely to cause damage. 14. In Ayodhya Prasad Sital Prasad v. Emperor 40 Cr. L.J. 1939 p. 61 it was held by Sind Judicial Commissioner's Court that whatever offences might be committed when a bogus insured cover was sent through post the offence of cheating the addressee within the provisions of Section 417 I.P.C. was not committed. 15. A contrary view was taken by the Patna High Court in Baijnath Sahay Vs. Emperor, AIR 1933 Patna 183 following its earlier decision in Sadho Lal v. Emperor 17 Cr. 15. A contrary view was taken by the Patna High Court in Baijnath Sahay Vs. Emperor, AIR 1933 Patna 183 following its earlier decision in Sadho Lal v. Emperor 17 Cr. L.J. 272 wherein it was held that an offence u/s 415 I.P.C. had been committed when the accused deciding to evade payment of his debt and to procure a document which would assist him in evading payment sent to the creditor a registered and insured cover containing only blank pieces of paper in order to obtain from him an acknowledgment of receipt which could subsequently be used in order to evade payment. It was observed that the creditor signed the acknowledgment about the receipt of the insured cover in the belief that it contained the same amount of money for with it had been insured which he would not have done if he were not so deceived and in signing the acknowledgment he committed an act which was likely to cause harm or damage to him within the meaning of Section 415 I.P.C. According to the decision the harm which was likely to be caused was that the acknowledgment receipt was likely to facilitate the evasion of payment by the debtor and cause embarrassment to the creditor when he sought to enforce his claim. 16. It would appear from an examination of the above authorities that the view of the majority of the High Courts is that the sending of an insured cover by a debtor to his creditor containing waste paper and obtaining an acknowledgment of the receipt of the cover by so deceiving him does not amount to the offence of cheating. The reason behind these decisions is that the acknowledgment of the cover did not raise any presumption about the receipt of any money and as such it was not likely to cause any harm to the creditor when he brought a suit for the enforcement of his claims. I am inclined to agree to the view taken by the majority of the High Courts. 17. In the circumstances the conviction and sentence of the applicant Under Sections 417 and 465 cannot be maintained. This revision is, therefore, allowed and the conviction and sentence of the applicant Under Sections 417 and 465 I.P.C. are set aside. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded.