Judgment :- 1. The complainant in C.C. 59/59 has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Munsiff-Magistrate of Thodupuzha. 2. The case against the accused was that on 28-6-56 he executed a hypothecation bond Ext. P-1 in respect of the property in S. No. 795/5B in Kodiculam Village for Rs. 350/- representing that the property belongs to him and that there were no encumbrances on the property. Believing the representation the complainant parted with money. 3. Later it was found out that the accused had no rights in the property, that on 30-1-56 about 5 months before Ext. P-1 he had already gifted his rights in the property to his wife and that prior to the gift deed he had assigned and sold away his half rights in the property to the wife. 4. Thus on the day the accused offered the property as security and made the representations to the complainant he knew that he had absolutely no rights in the property and that what he was representing was false. Where the accused knew from the very beginning that the representation which he was making to the complainant was a false one and it is on the basis of that representation that he obtained a certain sum of money from the complainant the accused would be guilty of cheating. Such a wilful misrepresentation of fact with intent to defraud would clearly amount to cheating. The representation is proved to be false to the knowledge of the accused at the time when he made the representation. Illustration [i] to S.415 may in this connection be noticed. The facts of this case are similar. 5. The learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused on the ground that it is a civil dispute. I fail to see where the civil dispute comes in in this case. Merely because the accused puts forward a false defence when he was being prosecuted would not take it away from being a criminal offence. I am not able to understand the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that there was no intention to cheat. The learned Magistrate is in error, if he supposes that the existence of a civil remedy should necessarily exclude trial by a criminal court of a criminal offence. I am not able to understand the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that there was no intention to cheat. The learned Magistrate is in error, if he supposes that the existence of a civil remedy should necessarily exclude trial by a criminal court of a criminal offence. Merely because there is a covenant in the hypothecation bond to make good the loss if any would be wholly an inadequate ground to throw out the case when there is clear evidence of a criminal offence being committed. The acquittal is, therefore, clearly wrong and unsustainable in law and has to be set aside. 6. The facts set forth above undoubtedly constitute an offence under S.420 IPC. It was argued that the offence would amount only to one under S.417 IPC. I cannot agree. S.417 IPC., deals with cheating generally, but S.420 deals with that species of cheating which involves delivery of property. The decisions are clear that the word property in S.420 includes money. I have, therefore, no doubt that the offence committed is one under S.420 IPC. I find the accused guilty and convict him under S.420 IPC. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I take a lenient view and sentence the accused to rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appeal is allowed. Allowed.