JUDGMENT Asthana, J. - This is an application in revision by one A.C. Budwar who has been convicted u/s 420, IPC by a Special Magistrate, 1st Class, Meerut, and has been sentenced to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default 6 months further rigorous imprisonment, which conviction and sentence has been confirmed in appeal by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut. 2. The case was started on the complaint of one Narain Das who alleged that in July 1949 the accused came to him and represented to him that he had entered into a contract with the Government of India to supply on hire some jeep cars for the use of the Police Force at Delhi and suggested to him that it was a profitable business and he should enter into partnership with him; that he accepted the suggestion and offered him Rs. 14,000/ - for the purchase of jeep cars as desired by him; that subsequently he made inquiries and learnt that the representation which bad been made to him and on the basis of which the money had been obtained from him, was false and that the accused had not obtained any contract from the Government of India as represented by him; that the accused besides Rs. 14,000/ - was also supplied with a jeep car as requested by him. It was further alleged in the complaint that when it was discovered that the accused had not obtained any contract he was asked to repay the amount and return the jeep car; that he gave two cheques for the total amount of Rs. 14,000/ - in repayment of the sum which had been taken by him but when the cheques were presented for being cashed they could not be cashed as the accused had stopped payment. It was also stated that at the time the cheques were issued by the accused he had not the amount to his credit for which he had issued the cheques. 3. The accused in his statement admitted that he had issued two post-dated cheques for the total amount of Rs. 14,000/ - in favour of the complainant, but he denied that they were issued in repayment of Rs. 14,000/ - which were alleged to have been taken by him from the complainant. His case was that the cheques for Rs. 3. The accused in his statement admitted that he had issued two post-dated cheques for the total amount of Rs. 14,000/ - in favour of the complainant, but he denied that they were issued in repayment of Rs. 14,000/ - which were alleged to have been taken by him from the complainant. His case was that the cheques for Rs. 14,000/ - were given to the complainant towards the purchase of the film 'Meena Bazar' owned by Indra Films, Ltd. in which the son of the complainant was a partner, but as the film was not given to him he stopped payment of the cheques. He also denied that he had made any representation to the complainant that he had obtained a contract with the Government of India for the supply of jeep cars for the Police Force or had obtained any money from him on such representation. His case was that the complainant had purchased certain articles and it was in lieu of the price of those articles that the complainant had given the cheques for Rs. 500/ - and Rs. 8,000/ - which amount had been advanced by the accused on his behalf at the time of the purchase as the complainant had no ready cash with him. 4. Both the lower courts on a consideration of the entire evidence were satisfied that the accused had obtained Rs. 14,000/ - from the complainant on the representation that he had obtained a contract from the Government of India for the supply of jeep cars; that this representation was false to the knowledge of the accused; that the cheques for Rs. 14,000/ -, which were post-dated, were issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in repayment of the sum of Rs. 14,000/ - which had been obtained by him on the above representation and that at the time of the issue of these cheques the accused had not the necessary amount to his credit in the bank. They did not accept the case of the accused that the cheques for Rs. 14,000/ - were issued in the name of the complainant towards the price of the film 'Meena Bazar' or that this film had been taken by him. On these findings they convicted the accused u/s 420, IPC and sentenced him as above. 5. They did not accept the case of the accused that the cheques for Rs. 14,000/ - were issued in the name of the complainant towards the price of the film 'Meena Bazar' or that this film had been taken by him. On these findings they convicted the accused u/s 420, IPC and sentenced him as above. 5. It was contended before me on behalf of the applicant that the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and no criminal case should have been filed by the complainant. There can be no doubt that if the accused obtained the sum of Rs. 14,000 from the complainant on the representation that he had taken a contract from the Government of India for the supply of jeep cars for the use of the Police Force in Delhi and if this representation was false the offence u/s 420 IPC is made out. The finding of both the courts below is that such a representation was made by the accused and it was on this representation that Rs. 5,500/ - was paid in cash by the complainant and two cheques of Rs. 500/ - and Rs. 8,000/ - were given by the complainant. The lower courts have also believed the prosecution evidence that a jeep car was also given to the accused by the complainant on the above representation. They have further found that the complainant did not purchase any articles as alleged by the accused for Rs. 8,500/ - nor this amount was paid in cash by the accused and the cheques for Rs. 8,000/ - and Rs. 500/ - were issued in these circumstances. The lower courts have further found that the cheques for Rs. 8,000/ - and Rs. 6,000/ - issued by the accused in favour of the complainant were not towards the price of the film 'Meena Bazar' but were in repayment of the sum of Rs. 14,000/ - which had been taken by him from the complainant. It may be mentioned here that the accused in his statement did not mention that the complainant had purchased gold ornaments from Sardar Dayal Singh and the price of these ornaments was paid by him in cash. It may further be mentioned that the complainant Narain Das was not questioned about it on his cross-examination and no satisfactory reason was given for the same. It may further be mentioned that the complainant Narain Das was not questioned about it on his cross-examination and no satisfactory reason was given for the same. In view of this fact the contention on behalf of the accused that the complainant had purchased ornaments from Sardar Dayal Singh and the cheques for Rs. 8,000/ - and Rs. 500/ - were issued in respect of it in favour of the accused because he had paid the amount, has been rightly disbelieved by the lower courts. The findings of the lower courts are findings of fact and on a perusal of the evidence on the record I do not see any satisfactory reason to disagree with the view taken by the courts below. On the findings arrived at by the lower courts the offence u/s 420 IPC has been clearly made out and it cannot be said that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. It is only in those cases where the representation on the basis of which the money is obtained by an accused person was correct at the time it was made or was not false to the knowledge of the accused and only subsequently the accused became dishonest or failed to carry out his part of the contract, that the dispute can be said to be of a civil nature. This is not the fact in the present case. Here the accused knew from the very beginning that the representation which he was making to the complainant was a false one and it was on the basis of that representation that he obtained the sum of Rs. 14,000/ - from the complainant. 6. It has also been contended for the accused that though there was no charge in respect of the jeep car, the trial court allowed evidence to be led in respect of it and both the courts below were influenced in their findings by the above evidence. It is true that no charge was framed in respect of the jeep car though it was clearly mentioned in the complaint, as well as in the prosecution evidence, that along with the sum of Rs. 14,000/ - a jeep car was also given to the accused as part of the transaction. It is true that no charge was framed in respect of the jeep car though it was clearly mentioned in the complaint, as well as in the prosecution evidence, that along with the sum of Rs. 14,000/ - a jeep car was also given to the accused as part of the transaction. I do not think that merely because no charge was framed in respect of the jeep car the prosecution could not produce evidence that along with the sum of Rs. 14,000/ - a jeep car was also given to the accused on the above representation and as part of the transaction. In order to decide the circumstances under which the sum of Rs. 14,000/ - was given to the accused the evidence about the jeep car which was also connected with the same transaction, cannot be said to be inadmissible or irrelevant. I have not been shown any provision of law which lays down that evidence can be led only in respect of that matter which is the subject matter of the charge and of no other matter, even though it is relevant to substantiate the charge. In my opinion the accused has not in any way been prejudiced by the evidence about the jeep car. 7. In the circumstances I am of opinion that the accused has been rightly convicted and there is no force in this revision. It is, therefore, rejected. As the applicant is on bail he shall surrender to it and serve out his sentence.