D. P. DESAI, J. M. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 522 of 1967 has been filed by the appellant who was original accused No. 1 in a Sessions Case No. 31 of 1967 in the Sessions Court of Kaira at Nadiad. He has been convicted of an offence punishable under sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5 0 and in default of payment of fine to undergo one years further rigorous imprisonment. He is also convicted of an offence punishable under sec. 420 read with sec. 511 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer one years rigorous imprisonment. Substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently. This order of sentences and convictions has been passed against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Nadiad Mr. J. B. Desai. He was charged with other offences. He has been acquitted of those offences. The State has not filed any appeal against that order of acquittal against this appellant. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is briefly stated as under:-ACCUSED No. 1 has got a bungalow at Adarsh Nagar in Jullundhar City Punjab State. In some of the back-rooms of that bungalow he had housed the office run in the name and style of Indian Homeopathic College Jullundhar City. He was the sole proprietor of that business run by him. He was giving advertisements in various news-papers throughout India and particularly in the areas of Gujarat State in the newspapers Sandesh and Jansatta. Those advertisements were given through his advertising agency International Publicity. Those advertisements were given in the name of Indian Homeopathic College Jullundhar. It appears that he was giving such advertisements from the years 1959 to 1965. The advertisement published by him in Jansatta of 1st January 1965 EX. 91 was to the following effect:- doctor BANOGHER BETHA TAPAL MARFAT VANCHINE SARKAR DWARA REGISTERED COLLEGEMATHI HOMEOPATHICNI TRAN SARVOCH DEGREEO M. D. H. M. Sc (Homeo) GOLD MEDALIST PRAPT KARO ANE KIRTI TATHA DHAN KAMAO. MAFAT VIVARAN MATE LAKHO:- indian HOMEOPATHIC COLLEGE (J. S. A.) P. B. 89 Jullundhar City. The English rendering of it would be:-BECOME a Doctor. Obtain the top-most degrees M. D. H. M. Sc. MAFAT VIVARAN MATE LAKHO:- indian HOMEOPATHIC COLLEGE (J. S. A.) P. B. 89 Jullundhar City. The English rendering of it would be:-BECOME a Doctor. Obtain the top-most degrees M. D. H. M. Sc. (Homeo) Gold Medallist by taking tuitions by post and reading at home from a college registered by the Government and earn fame (reputation) and earn money. Write for a free prospectus Indian Homeopathic College (J. S. A.) P. B. 89 Jullundhur City. ON reading such advertisements according to the prosecution the readers sent for the prospectus which is referred to as Niyamavali Ex. 33 equivalent to Exs. 48 and 64. The readers received such Niyamavali received application forms and money-order forms and relying on the representations made therein to be true they sent different amounts of money. They on reading the advertisements and the Niyamavali believed that they were to get Diplomas of a college registered by the Government of India and on receipt of these Diplomas they would be entitled to practice anywhere as represented therein. They also felt that the representation made to them was that the institution was a real institution and not a bogus institution and the institution was registered by the Government of India indicating that it was an authorised institution or an institution approved by the Government of India or recognised by the Government of India. They parted with their moneys relying on those representations and believing them to be true. They got Diplomas. They moved the registering authority in the State of Gujarat and to their surprise they found that no such institution was recognised and eventually they could not be registered as medical practitioners taking into account the provisions of the relevant Homeopathic Act prevalent in the State. It is the prosecution case that one of the prosecution witnesses Natvarlal who is alleged to be cheated talked to his friend Punambhai who felt that this was a bogus institution and the institution was cheating the people. He thereupon wrote an article Hant Tarang Ex. 232 in Jansatta so that other people at large may not be deceived and cheated. He thereupon wrote an article Hant Tarang Ex. 232 in Jansatta so that other people at large may not be deceived and cheated. One Satishchandra realising that people were being cheated and an attempt was made to cheat him by accused No. 1 sent the relevant documents received by him from accused No. 1 with his letter to D. I. G. (C. I. D.) Gujarat to make the necessary inquiry and to take action against such cheats. The inquiry was first entrusted to P. S. I. P. D. Patel who made some inquiry and the inquiry was subsequently entrusted to C. I. D. Inspector Upadhyaya. After making the necessary enquiry a complaint Ex. 306 was lodged on 6th July 1965 He made the investigation. He arrested accused No. 1 and had made a search in the aforesaid office rooms etc. of accused No. 1 on different dates commencing from 16th July 1965 to 21st July 1965 and attached several articles under different panchnamas. After the completion of the investigation both the accused were charge-sheeted to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nadiad. The Committing Magistrate after making a preliminary inquiry sent both the accused to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial for the offences referred to above. ( 3 ) THE learned Advocate Mr. B. K. Amin appearing on behalf of accused No. 1 made the following broad submissions:- (1) No offence is committed as there is no wrongful loss or gain caused to anybody. (2) There is no false representation. There is no mis-representation (3) Reading the charge fairly the charge against accused No. 1 was that the cheating was done by this accused by giving forged diplomas instead of genuine diplomas. There was no specific charge against him that certain false representations were made namely regarding the registration or recognition of this college and holding out that persons getting diplomas or degrees from such college will be entitled to practice meaning thereby that right will be conferred on them to practice irrespective of any laws prevailing in different States prohibiting them from practising without themselves being registered as registered medical practioners and which could be done only if they had obtained degrees or diplomas of the recognised institutions under that Act. (4) Accused No. 1 having been acquitted of the offences of forging such diplomas and using the forged diplomas as genuine diplomas the consequence was that he ought to have been acquitted of the offence punishable under sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code also. (5) At the most it could be said that there was a breach of contract on the part of accused No. 1 and if it was so there could have been a civil liability of accused No. 1 and there could not any criminal liability. (6) At the most even if his other contentions are not accepted it could be said that offence committed by accused No. 1 was a simple offence of cheating punishable under sec. 417 of the Indian Penal Code and he could not have been convicted of an offence punishable under sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. (7) In case the Court found that conviction of accused No. 1 was proper sentence awarded was absolutely out of proportion and was very harsh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [his Lordship after discussing the facts and points of law held that it was not correct to say that as accused No. 1 had been acquitted of the offences under secs. 468 471 or 475 I. P. C. the necessary consequence would be that he should be acquitted of offence under sec. 420 I. P. C. His Lordship further observed. ] ( 4 ) WE will now refer to Mr. Amins main contention that there was no false representation made by accused No. 1 or there was no misrepresentation and eventually no offence could be said to have been committed by accused No. 1 in this behalf. His main contention was that the principal object of accused No. 1 in making such advertisements like advertisement published in Jansatta newspaper Ex. 917 or the representation as made in the Niyamavali Ex. 33 the material part of which we will refer to at an appropriate stage was to propagate the science of Homoeopathy to spread Homoeopathy in all corners of India and to encourage people to practice Homoeopathy to advance the cause of Homoeopathy. All those persons who wanted to participate in this laudable cause were invited to join and participate. 33 the material part of which we will refer to at an appropriate stage was to propagate the science of Homoeopathy to spread Homoeopathy in all corners of India and to encourage people to practice Homoeopathy to advance the cause of Homoeopathy. All those persons who wanted to participate in this laudable cause were invited to join and participate. Accused No. 1 never held out that this college of his was recognised by the Government i. e. by the Government of India or that it was approved by the Government of India. He also never held out that he would be giving diplomas or degrees which are recognised by the Government of India or any Government which would confer a right on the recipient of those diplomas or degrees to practice anywhere irrespective of position that there might be State Legislation prohibiting them from practising Homoeopathic science without obtaining diplomas or degrees of the recognised university or recognised institution. People may even learn Homoeopathy by getting such postal tuitions for obtaining knowledge in this science and may learn it for helping their friends and relations. Accused No. 1 did not intend that they should practice it for the purpose of earning money. The literal meaning of the words registered with or by the Government of India would mean that there was some registration. As a matter of fact the trade name given by accused No. 1 for the purpose of giving Homoeopathic training was Indian Homoeopathic College and such trade name or business name was registered with the Registrar of Assurance Calcutta as revealed by the document Ex. 109 and other oral evidence led by the prosecution namely the evidence of Phonibhusan Ex. 108 Yogendrapal Ex. 242 and Anilkumar Ex. 110. It therefore means that the business name or the trade name Indian Homoeopathic College was as a matter of fact registered. Therefore it could not be said that a false representation was made by accused No. 1 which was false to his knowledge. His further contention was that accused No. 1 really Intended to give a training in Homoeopathic science. He did give such training by sending lessons like Exs. 8 to 10 to those persons who are alleged to have been cheated. His further contention was that accused No. 1 really Intended to give a training in Homoeopathic science. He did give such training by sending lessons like Exs. 8 to 10 to those persons who are alleged to have been cheated. What he wanted to convey was that the persons joining his institution would get such lessons and would thereby equip themselves with the necessary training which would enable them to practice any where. He never intended to convey to those persons joining his institution that they were going to get the diplomas or degrees of a recognised institution-institute recognised by the Government or by any University and on account of receipt of diplomas or degrees of such a recognised institution they would get a right to practice inspite of there being any legislation of the State prohibiting them to practice in Homoeopathy without getting diplomas of a recognised institution. His object was to merely spread Homoeopathy and encourage people to practice Homoeopathy. That was the only laudable object of his and the knowledge that he was imparting by giving postal lessons was in his opinion sufficient to enable those trainees to practice. He did not represent to them that they would get the qualification which was recognised by the Government or the University What was spoken was the attainment of knowledge in Homoeopathy to enable one to practice in Homoeopathy. In short he urged that accused No. 1 did not make any representation that it was a college recognised by the Government of India or any Government for the purpose of giving diplomas or degrees and hence there was no false representation made. Representation held out was correct as the trade name was registered by the Government. There was no question of any mis-understanding as there was no central statute regulating practice in Homoeopathy or for imparting knowledge in Homoeopathy. Further more there was no institution like Indian Government recognised Homoeopathic College. The Government registered did not mean Government recognised. The Niyamavali should be read fairly and as a whole and if it is so done it could be deduced that this argument advanced by him was correct. He urged that it could be said with some force that there were some exaggerations made by accused No. 1 to give respectability to his college to attract people to join it but they were business exaggerations. He urged that it could be said with some force that there were some exaggerations made by accused No. 1 to give respectability to his college to attract people to join it but they were business exaggerations. There was no dishonest intention of accused No. 1 and he never intended to deceive people. He had made a statement in this behalf in good faith and hence no offence could be said to be committed by him. These were the main submissions made by him on this point. ( 5 ) AS against this learned Hon. Assistant Government Pleader Mr. A. H. Thakkar contended that if the course of conduct of accused No. 1 is seen and the context in which these statements are made is looked into and the relevant circumstances are looked into there is no escape from the conclusion that accused No. 1 wanted to mis-lead people. He wanted to deceive people and that is why be gave prominence in the advertisements as well as in the Niyamavalis about the registration of the College. The evidence discloses that there was no such college which was registered. The college as a matter of fact could not be registered as revealed by the unimpeachable evidence led by the prosecution. It was a trade name or a business name that was registered. There was no reason for accused No. 1 to state about the registration to the trainees if really his object was to protect his proprietary interest so that other persons may not do such business in this name i. e. Indian Homoeopathic College. He urged that if one was dealing with competitors there could be a reasonable ground for referring to such registration. Here he was referring to the trainees. To such trainees there could not be any reason to convey that this business name was registered. Furthermore he contended that really if he wanted to convey that this registration was for such a purpose he could have very well mentioned in the advertisements or atleast in the Niyamavalis that his trade name was registered which would entitle him to protect his proprietary interest. That has not been done. Accused No. 1 had wrongly used his weapon of registration and had tried to mislead the people by such uses of that weapon. That has not been done. Accused No. 1 had wrongly used his weapon of registration and had tried to mislead the people by such uses of that weapon. His object and intention were none else but to make the people believe that this was a college which was registered by the Government of India and that they would get on taking tuitions and passing examinations diplomas or degrees referred to therein from such a college which is registered by the Government of India and on receipt of such diplomas or degrees they would be entitled to practice. He urged that this accused fully knowing that this statement or representation that he was making was untrue and false to his knowledge made this false representation and dishonestly induced persons deceived to deliver property to him. He therefore contended that the offence in question was clearly established against accused No. 1 by the prosecution. ( 6 ) WE will now examine the validity of submissions made by Mr. Amin. We first propose to refer to the two important documents the advertisements Exs. 91 123 etc. and Niyamavalis like Exs. 33 43 or 64. The Niyamavali Ex. 35 is for the year 1964 Advertisement Ex. 91 has been referred to by us in the earlier part of the judgment. Advertisement Ex. 123 in Sandesh is also to the similar effect. Advertisement Ex. 312 is also to the similar effect. We have already set out in extenso that advertisement and have also given its English rendering. We need not repeat it. That advertisement clearly indicates that there was an invitation to become a doctor by taking postal tuitions at home and to get the top-most three degrees M. D. H. M. Sc. (Homoeo) and Gold Medallist from this college registered with or by the Government. It is therefore evident that the emphasis was to get such degrees from a college registered with the Government or by the Government. It is also further mentioned get these degrees and earn money and fame or reputation. It could not therefore be said from this advertisement that the object was to advocate the cause of Homoeopathy and to spread Homoeopathy and the object was not to earn money. It is also further mentioned get these degrees and earn money and fame or reputation. It could not therefore be said from this advertisement that the object was to advocate the cause of Homoeopathy and to spread Homoeopathy and the object was not to earn money. By reading this advertisement none could reasonably understand that it was a trade name or the firms name of accused No. 5 which was registered and that was what was intended to be conveyed by a mention of the fact that the College was registered with or by the Government. To all persons what was intended to be conveyed was that persons would be able to get these topmost degrees in Homoeopathy from this college which is registered with or by the Government. In the Niyamavali Ex. 33 which is for the year 1964 on the cover page heading is that this is the biggest institution of India giving postal tuitions. We have no materials to show chat there was any other institution which gave such postal tuitions on a larger scale than the alleged institution of accused No. 1. We would not therefore be justified say that it was a false representation though the Hon. Assistant Government Pleader made such an argument. Thereafter reference is made-Indian Homoeopathic Calij Jullundur City. In the bracket the words used in Hindi are BHARAT SARKARSE REGISTERED. To any reader in our opinion the impression that will be normally created will be that there is an Indian Homoeopathic College at Jullundur City. Furthermore it will convey them without any doubt that this College is registered with or by the Government of India. Prominence is given to this fact of registration and the registration with none else but with the Government of India. Thereafter some words are quoted which are alleged to have been the words of Mahatma Heinemann the founder of this science. On page 2 the history is given as to how that founder was interested in this science and praise of this system of Homoeopathy is made. That is quite innocuous. On page 3 under the caption-Hamara Calij i. e. our College important representations which are material for our purposes find place. In the beginning portion of it a statement is made that this institution is established for the purpose of spreading Homoeopathy. That is quite innocuous. On page 3 under the caption-Hamara Calij i. e. our College important representations which are material for our purposes find place. In the beginning portion of it a statement is made that this institution is established for the purpose of spreading Homoeopathy. It is thereafter recited that today in all corners of India students having learnt Homoeopathy from their institution are practising independently as Homoeopathic Doctors. It is thereafter recited as to why it is necessary to spread this science in a poor country like India That is also innocuous. The important part which is material for our purposes runs in Hindi as under:-HAMARE KALIJSE SHIKSHA PRAPT KARNEWALE VIDYARTHIKO HAMARI BHARAT SARKAR DWARA REGISTERED KALIJ KA DIPLOMA DIYA JATA HAI JISKO PRAPT KARKE VIDYARTHI KAHINBHI SWATANTRA ROOPSE APNI HOMOEOPATHIC DAKTARI KI PRACTICE KAR SAKTA HAI. IT is significant to note at this stage that as this document had come on the record and it was in Hindi language we have got that document and other material documents translated in the office of the translator of this Court. On a plain reading of this material part of the document it appears that what was intended to be conveyed was that to the students taking tuitions from their college diplomas will be given of a college registered by our Government of India. On receipt of such diplomas the students would be entitled to practises - as Homeopathic doctors independently anywhere. The emphasis was that diplomas that would be given would be of a college registered by our Government of India. Further emphasis was that on obtaining such diplomas those students would be able to practice anywhere as Homeopathic doctors independently. We have to read this fact of registration in the context in which it appears and it would not be proper to give a literal meaning and try to understand it divorced from the other context. It could not be said by referring to this portion that accused No. 1 intended to convey that this trade name was registered or his business name was registered and that too for protecting his proprietary interest. Emphasis was that the students taking tuitions from his college would get diplomas of a College registered by or with the Government of India. That was what accused No. 1 intended to convey to his readers. Emphasis was that the students taking tuitions from his college would get diplomas of a College registered by or with the Government of India. That was what accused No. 1 intended to convey to his readers. That is what he intended that his readers should understand. Furthermore he made a representation that students receiving such diplomas would be entitled to practice in Homoeopathic medicine independently anywhere. He did not intend to convey that the training given in this institution was such that on receipt of such training these students will equip themselves with sufficient knowledge that would enable them to practice anywhere independently. If really he intended to convey to his readers this intention of his he would not have made this representation in the manner it has been done. It clearly appears that his intention was to give a respectable status to his College by making a specific reference and by giving prominence to it that the students are to get Diplomas from as College registered by our Government of India or with the Government of India. Under the caption-Education Scheme he refers to the qualifications of the trainees. One of them was that he must be aged 16 years and he must be able to read and write Hindi English or Urdu. The course was of three months. Lessons can be had in any of these three languages. It also refers to the fees to be paid under the caption-Fees. It is also That has been probably done with a view to impress upon the people that there was really such a College and admission was not so easy. Under the caption-Examination-it has been mentioned that it is not necessary for the trainees to come to their institution for examination. Arrangements will be made in their town and village and for that no separate charges will be levied. Furthermore in that very para again emphasis is made that on passing the examination the students will be given Homoeopathy Doctors diploma M. D. H. (Doctor of Homoeopathy Medicine) by their college registered with the Government of India. That is how he is to be honoured. Further it is stated that on passing the examination and obtaining the diploma the students will be entitled to write the word Doctor prefixed to his name and would be entitled to practice. The words used are:- Practice Karneka Adhikari Hoga. That is how he is to be honoured. Further it is stated that on passing the examination and obtaining the diploma the students will be entitled to write the word Doctor prefixed to his name and would be entitled to practice. The words used are:- Practice Karneka Adhikari Hoga. On reading this Niyamavali fairly as a whole there is no escape from the conclusion that accused No. 1 misused the fact of the registration of his trade name or the business name to mislead the people and to make the people believe that it was his college which was registered by the Government of India and the college of such status was going to grant such diplomas and on obtaining such diplomas that is diplomas of a college which has been given a status by being registered with or by the Government they would be entitled to practice anywhere independently in Homoeopathic medicine. That is the only conclusion that could be arrived at on carefully and it that accused No. 1 used this fact in good faith and he had no intention to deceive people. It was not an innocuous mention. These advertisements as well as the Niyamavalis were meant for the persons who were to take lessons by post from their alleged institution. There could not be any necessity to mention about the fact of registration of a trade name or a business name in such dealing. There could be an occasion to mention about it ordinarily when one is dealing with competitors. If really accused No. 1 wanted to protect his proprietary interest so that other persons may not give tuitions in that manner he could have in plain words mentioned about it in the advertisement or in the Niyamavali. He does not do so. It is very apparent that he does not do it with a deliberate purpose as he only intended to use this fact for his ulterior motive namely to impress upon the people that this was a college of a status. For achieving that purpose it was said that the college was registered by the Government of India and students joining such institution were going to get diplomas the obtaining of which would entitle them to practice anywhere independently in Homoeopathic medicine. For achieving that purpose it was said that the college was registered by the Government of India and students joining such institution were going to get diplomas the obtaining of which would entitle them to practice anywhere independently in Homoeopathic medicine. ( 7 ) WE will refer to other documents only to consider the conduct of accused No. 1 as in our opinion the conduct is an important factor to be taken into consideration to see whether this use was made by accused No. 1 in good faith or it was with a purpose as indicated by us above. AT this stage we would like to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Shivnarayan v. State oaf Madras A. I. R. 1967 Supreme Court 986. The ratio of that decision is that for the establishment of an offence punishable under sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code the accused need not make false pretence in express words-same may be inferred from all circumstances including conduct of accused in obtaining property. Mr. Amin tried to distinguish this case on the ground that a non-member of any recognised institution cannot trade in forward contracts. Accused had given an advertisement that he was dealing in forward contracts. He was the proprietor of a firm in Bombay doing forward contract business as a Pucca Adatia. As such the representation was made. It would mean that persons dealing with him would know or would infer that he must be a member of any such recognised association as in view of the position of law regarding forward contract he cannot do any forward contract business without being a member of any such institution or association. In our opinion we are not concerned with the facts of that case. What is material is the ratio of that decision. At page 988 the relevant observations made are as under:-IT is not necessary that a false pretence should be made in express words by the appellant. It may be inferred from all the circumstances including the conduct of the appellant in obtaining the property and in Ex. P-34 (a) the appellant stated something which was not true and concealed from P. W. 2 the fact that he was not a member of any recognised association and that he was not entitled to carry on the forward contract business. P-34 (a) the appellant stated something which was not true and concealed from P. W. 2 the fact that he was not a member of any recognised association and that he was not entitled to carry on the forward contract business. It is clear that P. W. 2 would not have parted with the sum of Rs. 12 0 but for the inducement contained in Ex. P-34 and the representation of the appellant that he could lawfully carry on forward contract business. IT is thus evident that the conduct is an important factor that could be taken into account. It will be significant to note that an important test for the establishment of such an offence is whether the accused intended to convey to the people certain facts or whether he intended to make the people understand accordingly. Further important fact to be considered is whether people were made to believe accordingly relying upon those representations. For ascertaining the intention one has got to look to the conduct; if the accused has done something negligently or recklessly or in good faith this important element will be absent and eventually the accused cannot be held guilty of such an offence. ( 8 ) WE will now refer to the application form Ex. 36 which accused No. 1 sent on receipt of a letter from a reader after reading such advertisement. In this application form also prominence is given to the Government registration by using those words in the bracket suffixing the word-Indian Homoeopathic College. This form is a printed form. Such forms have been sent in the course of one year to the people who are alleged to have been cheated in the State of Gujarat. It is stated therein that a request for sending the prospectus has been received from the applicant and it is being sent. It is further stated therein that the applicant will be glad to know that the College Board has accepted his request for admission. It will create an impression that there was real college existing managed by a Board. It is further recited therein that the applicant would pardon for getting the reply late and cause for delay was that there was no seat vacant and thousands of applicants were waiting for admission. It will create an impression that there was real college existing managed by a Board. It is further recited therein that the applicant would pardon for getting the reply late and cause for delay was that there was no seat vacant and thousands of applicants were waiting for admission. The fact that this was the biggest institution in India giving the top-most degree of M. D. H. system of medicine and on obtaining such degree the applicant can practice in Homoeopathy was reiterated. It is stated therein that in case a candidate does not want to take admission it is his moral duty to inform immediately so that the seat that may fall vacant can be allotted to another candidate. It is further stated therein that fees are to be increased from the next session and hence advantage should be taken earlier. It may be said with some force that such exaggerations may be business exaggerations and no much weight may be attached to them. A circular Ex. 44 was sent to the applicants which showed that the college was going to celebrate the anniversary of the birth date of Dr. Heinemann the founder of Homoeopathic Science and on that occasion degrees could be obtained at a concessional rate of Rs. 10. 00. In that circular also prominence is given to Government Registration. Similar is the position regarding the circular Ex. 69 wherein prominence is given to the registration by the Government of India. Therein a mention is made about the annual celebration of the College-day and on that occasion degrees will be given at a concessional rate of Rs. 10. 00. All these documents and some other documents to which the learned trial Judge has made reference are referred to by us only for a limited purpose of showing the conduct of accused No. 1 and not for the purpose of arriving at our conclusion that certain false representations were made therein. So far as question of false representation is concerned we are relying upon the two important documents the advertisements and the Niyamavalis. The other documents are referred to only for the purpose of judging the conduct of accused No. 1. These documents leave no doubt that a systematic method adopted by accused No. 1 was for a purpose to make out money from the people anyhow. The other documents are referred to only for the purpose of judging the conduct of accused No. 1. These documents leave no doubt that a systematic method adopted by accused No. 1 was for a purpose to make out money from the people anyhow. To achieve it he went on saying that on one occasion or the other that people can take an advantage of the institution at a concessional rate. We find from the evidence of Kishorilal an employee of accused No. 1 Ex. 57 that there was no such function held. We find also from the evidence of several prosecution witnesses that even though no answer papers were sent by them and there was no examination as a matter of fact the diplomas were sent to them by V. P. P. We further find from the evidence of Kishorilal Ex. 57 that this college was a bogus college. There was no principal. There was no examiner. It will be thus evident that really as a matter of fact there was no such examination on the basis of which diplomas were given or were intended to be given. There was no principal as such. The real position was that accused No. 1 was doing this business in the back part of his bungalow engaging 13 or 14 clerks for maintaining registers for sending tuitions and for maintaining accounts etc. This employment of clerks was made not only for the business in question but for several other businesses which were done by him in different names with which we are not concerned in this appeal. This conduct of accused No. 1 does not indicate even to the slightest extent that his aim was to advance the cause of Homoeopathy and to spread Homoeopathy. It does not indicate that what he intended to convey was that the trainees will get sufficient knowledge to equip themselves with such necessary basic knowledge in Homoeopathic science_ that they would be able to practice. This use about the fact of registration with the Government of India or by the Government of India was made with an avowed object to impress upon the people at large that these diplomas they would get by taking postal tuitions from this college a college of a status acquired by registration of that college with or by the Government. That fact was not a true fact. That fact was not a true fact. It was a false representation to the knowledge of accused No. 1. 15 At this stage we will refer to the evidence of Phonibhusan Ex. 108. He was working as Accounts Clerk in the office of the Registrar of Assurance Calcutta at the material time. He has deposed that the Registrar of Assurance registers the documents relating to immovable properties partnership declarations declaration of names and documents of similar character. He further states Our office cannot register any college. He was shown the original of Ex. 109 and he produced a copy of it. In cross-examination the fact brought out is that the trade name is registered by the Registrar of Assurance. The trade name is registered if the declarant states that the name is his own invention and no body can use that name. The name of Indian Homoeopathic College is registered in the book. It is written that this name is registered for and on behalf of Dev Datt Shastri. The address of Dev Datt Shastri is given as Jullundur city in the declaration. There is a recital in it to the effect that he had designed and adopted the said name Indian Homoeopathic College in respect of Homoeopathic training institution managed and controlled by him which he has been using as his special name. That declaration is duly registered. The person who had gone to that office for this registration on behalf of accused No. 1 was Anilkumar Datt who has been examined at Ex. 110. He is a proprietor of Datt and Co. the business of which is that of Trade Mark Registration Agent. He had produced three documents namely Exs. 111 112 and 113 which show that at the instance of accused No. 1 he had got this declaration Ex. 109 registered. He has also deposed to the fact that this letter was for the declaration of the name. No college as such was registered but only the name. In cross-examination the fact brought out was that the name of the Indian Homoeopathic College was registered. The fact that the trade name Indian Homoeopathic College was registered gets corroboration from the document Declaration Registration Ex. 111 and also from the sheet of particulars Ex. 112. 16 Yogendra Pal Ex. No college as such was registered but only the name. In cross-examination the fact brought out was that the name of the Indian Homoeopathic College was registered. The fact that the trade name Indian Homoeopathic College was registered gets corroboration from the document Declaration Registration Ex. 111 and also from the sheet of particulars Ex. 112. 16 Yogendra Pal Ex. 242 through whose expert advice accused No. 1 prepared the declaration in question deposes that he had placed this order on behalf of accused No. 1 and got this name registered under the Indian Registration Act No. 16 of 1908. The name of the firm to be registered was Indian Homoeopathic College. Accused No. 1 had filled in all the necessary columns in Ex. 243 and Ex. 244 is the receipt given by accused No. 1 for obtaining a copy Ex. 109. This witness also definitely states that it was the trade name or the business name of the firm that was registered. In cross-examination he has stated that Indian Homoeopathic College is registered as a trade name. The business of the firm was Homoeopathic training. This evidence unmistakably reveals that it was the trade name Indian Homeopathic College that was registered under the Registration Act. Under sec. 18 of the Registration Act such registrations can be made. It appears also on referring to this declaration Ex. 109 that it had been registered as it was admissible under rule 21. We find such rule 21 in the Bengal Registration Rules 1939 Mr. Amin fairly stated that this registration was under sec. 18 of the Registration Act and not under the Trade Marks Act 1940 It is significant to note that if the registration was under the Trade Mark Act 1940 it would be in the Registry known as Registry of Trade Marks and the registering authority will be the Registrar of Trade Marks. That is not the position in the instant case. It is therefore evident that the registration is not under the Trade Marks Act. But it is under the Registration Act and that position is accepted even by the witness under whose expert advice this registration came to be made by accused No. 1. It is therefore evident that it was the business name or the trade name that was registered and not the college. The trade name given was Indian Homeopathic College. But it is under the Registration Act and that position is accepted even by the witness under whose expert advice this registration came to be made by accused No. 1. It is therefore evident that it was the business name or the trade name that was registered and not the college. The trade name given was Indian Homeopathic College. It is therefore evident that accused No. 1 deliberately laid emphasis on this registration to mis-lead the people and to make the people believe that it is this college which is registered by the Government of India or with the Government of India that is going to give diplomas to the students who take lessons from this college by post and on obtaining diplomas of such a college they would be entitled to practice in Homoeopathic medicine anywhere independently. This is what accused No. 1 intended to convey to the people. That is what he intended to understand them. He never intended to convey them that this was a trade name which was registered and that too it was for protecting his proprietary interest. If really he intended to convey it he could have very well so done in plain words. He had not chosen to do so deliberately. At this stage we would like to refer to a decision of the Madras High Court. In re M. K. Srinivasan A. I. R. 1944 Madras 411 a single Judge of that High Court referred to the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused in that case at page 411 and certain observations made by the trying Magistrate are as under:- In para 7 of his judgment however the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate has observed that the crown Prosecutor conceded that the conspiracy consisted in the publication of the prospectus and that no inference that the commission of breach of trust of the Trust funds was one of its objects could be drawn and that he also conceded that so far as cheating is concerned the offence consisted in suppressing material particulars from the prospectus and not in making false representations. The trial therefore proceeded on the assumption that the object of the conspiracy was to cheat the public and to induce them to subscribe share monies and further that the deception consisted in the dishonest concealment of facts. The trial therefore proceeded on the assumption that the object of the conspiracy was to cheat the public and to induce them to subscribe share monies and further that the deception consisted in the dishonest concealment of facts. The concessions made by the learned Crown Prosecutor at the trial have been stressed by learned counsel for the accused and he urges that it is not now open to the prosecution to maintain that the prospectus contains false representations or to contend that acts of criminal breach of trust in respect of the companys funds after the company had been formed can be taken into account for the purpose of deciding the intention with which the prospectus was drawn and issued. After referring to the substance of the prospectus the learned Judge at pages 411 and 412 has made the following observations:- The prosecution case is that there were three material omissions from this prospectus which rendered the impression given by it completely false and indeed the prospectus as a whole a sham. These omissions were alleged to be (1) failure to reveal the true position of the concerns taken over by the Trust (2) failure to state explicitly that the contract entered into with the Travancore Sugars Ltd. would be cancelled by the subletting or assignment of their interests without the consent of that company and (3) failure to indicate that the contractors the accused were in arrears to the installments and interest payable by them so that for this reason also the contract could be cancelled. It will be convenient here to consider the law relating to the charge of conspiracy. Mr. Braddel contends that the Chief Presidency Magistrate sets out the relevant provisions of the Penal Code and then considers some well-known English authorities. At the end of the paragraph he deduces certain principles. They are (1) that in order to make a prospectus fraudulent it is not necessary that there should be false representation in it; even if every word is true the suppression of material facts will render it fraudulent. . To judge its effect it should be read as a whole (2) it is not enough if the prospectus refers to the contracts and puts the intending shareholder upon enquiry as to their contents. . To judge its effect it should be read as a whole (2) it is not enough if the prospectus refers to the contracts and puts the intending shareholder upon enquiry as to their contents. Probably in (1) it would have been more accurate to have said that the suppression of material facts may render it fraudulent and in (2) to have said that it is not necessarily enough for the prospectus to refer to contracts and put the intending shareholders upon enquiry. Otherwise however there is no fault to be found with the principles deduced. Happell J. in this decision referred to certain observations made by Lord Macnaghten in Cluckstien v. Barnes 1900 Appeal Cases 240. In our opinion Lord Macnaghten in that judgment has made very weighty observations which have got important bearing. We therefore propose to refer to those observations which appear at pages 250 and 251. They are as under:- My Lord It is a trite observation that every document as against author must be read on the sense which it was intended to convev. And every-body knows that sometimes half a truth is no better than a downright falsehood. It is the statement in the prospectus which I have just read as to the price which the vendors had to pay for the property true or false ? In the letters it is true. The vendors had bid 1 40 0 for the property and had formally agreed to pay that sum of 1 40 0 was not the sum that were going to pay and they knew that well enough. They had provided themselves with counters obtained at little cost which in reckoning the price would be taken as they knew at their face value so that the price of the property to them would be only about 1 20 0 Is that what Mr. Gluckstein and his associates meant the public to understand ? Surely ordinary persons reading the prospectus and attracted by the hopes of profit held out by it would say to themselves Here is a scheme which promises well. The gentlemen who are putting the property on the market know something about it for they were the sole directors and managers of Venice in London which was a very profitable speculation. Surely ordinary persons reading the prospectus and attracted by the hopes of profit held out by it would say to themselves Here is a scheme which promises well. The gentlemen who are putting the property on the market know something about it for they were the sole directors and managers of Venice in London which was a very profitable speculation. This is the test laid down by the eminent Lord Macnaghten and in our opinion this is the correct test laid down. If we judge the instant case taking into account that important factor the only answer that we can get is that accused No. 1 intended and wanted the people to understand that they were to get tuitions from a college which has got a status a college having been registered with the Government of India or by the Government of India and they were going to get diplomas from such a college which would entitle them to practice in Homoeopathic medicine anywhere. That was what he intended to convey and wanted the people to understand. He did not want to convey that this trade name Indian Homoeopathic College was registered with the Registrar of Assurance for the purpose of protecting trade interests. This was the statement which he made with a deliberate intention to mis-lead the. people knowing fully well that this was an untrue statement. It would therefore amount to deception. There could not be any doubt about it. In Aarons Reefs Limited v. Twiss 1896 Appeal Cases 273 Lord Chancellor Halsbury at page 279 has referred to certain observations which have also got some bearing as some argument was advanced on these lines also faintly by Mr. Amin. The relevant observations are:- My Lords that very argument was used before Sir George Jessel in the case of Redgrave v. Hurd 20 Ch. D. 13 and in a very luminous judgment he disposed of that argument absolutely. He said:- There is another proposition of law of very great importance which I think it is necessary for me to state because with great deference to the very learned Judge from whom this appeal comes I think it is not quite accurately stated in his judgment. He said:- There is another proposition of law of very great importance which I think it is necessary for me to state because with great deference to the very learned Judge from whom this appeal comes I think it is not quite accurately stated in his judgment. If a man is induced to enter into a contract by a false representation it is not a sufficient answer to him to say if you had used due diligence you would have found out that the statement was untrue. You had the means afforded you of discovering its falsity and did not choose to avail yourself of them. I take it to be settled doctrine of equity not only as regards specific performance but also as regards rescission that this is not an answer unless there is such delay as constitutes a defence under the Statute of Limitation. These observations have also been referred to by the learned Happell J. in the aforesaid Madras decision. ( 9 ) IT was urged by Mr. Amin that accused No. 1 did not represent that the institution was recognised by the Government of India. He did not represent that the trainees would get diplomas of a recognised institution which would in law confer a right on them which would entitle them to practice Homoeopathy anywhere irrespective of State legislations prohibiting them from practising without obtaining diplomas of a recognised institution. If the persons who are alleged to be cheated misunderstood then there was no fault on his part and hence this Court should come to the conclusion that no offence was committed by accused No. 1 in that behalf. We are of the opinion that such representations need not be in express words. If such representations could be spelt out by necessary implications and it could be said from the attendant circumstances and the conduct of accused No. 1 that this was what he intended to convey and wanted the people to believe and that was done with a view to deceive them and if the persons acted on such representations believing them to be true it could be said that the offence has been established against accused No. 1. As said by us earlier if accused No. 1 did not intend to convey to the people about this or did not want them to understand that this was a registered institution and wanted them only to believe that this was only a trade name that was registered there was no reason of making such emphasis as has been found in these relevant documents. The matter does not rest there only. We have got oral as well as documentary evidence to show as to what some of these cheated persons believed relying on these representations. partly ( 10 ) IT is thus evident on consideration of the aforesaid evidence which we find to be acceptable and reliable that a belief created in the minds of the people in general on reading the advertisements and the Niyamavalis was that this institution was an institution registered or recognised by the Government or approved by the Government and persons taking tuitions from such an institution were to get diplomas or degrees from such an institution which will entitle them to practice in Homoeopathic system of medicine anywhere. It is therefore evident that it is not only that accused No. 1 intended to create such an impression on the minds of the public as we have found but even persons who acted on these representations believing them to be true had got such an impression. That was an avowed object of this accused and for that purpose he deliberately laid emphasis on the institution being registered with the Government of India or by the Government of India and persons taking tuitions from this college which had got such a status were to get diplomas which would entitle them to practice in this science anywhere independently. That was the clear intention of accused No. 1 and with that object in mind and to give reality to the college which was really a bogus college and was not registered by the Government of India or with the Government of India these representations were made. Those representations were false to the knowledge of accused No. 1. That was the clear intention of accused No. 1 and with that object in mind and to give reality to the college which was really a bogus college and was not registered by the Government of India or with the Government of India these representations were made. Those representations were false to the knowledge of accused No. 1. It was only with a view to give colour of reality to his institution and to deceive people by making them believe that they were going to get tuitions from such a college which is registered by the Government of India or an institution which has got a status on account of such registration and the diplomas or degrees from such a college will entitle them to practice anywhere these representations were made. We therefore find that the arguments advanced by Mr. Amin in this behalf are not well founded. It is not the literal meaning that is to be taken into account. One has to take into account as to what accused No. 1 intended to convey thereby and as to what he wanted the people to understand thereby and further what the people understood thereby. ( 11 ) IT was urged by Mr. Amin that in Punjab the Punjab Homoeopathic Act came into force in the year 1965. Jullundur City was situated in Punjab. There is no positive evidence led by the prosecution to show that accused No. 1 knew that there were such legislations like the Bombay Homoeopathic Act 1951 or the Gujarat Homoeopathic Act 1963 which prohibited such practice in Homoeopathic medicine without getting diplomas or degrees from the recognised institution. He therefore contended that it could not be said that accused No. 1 made any false representation to deceive the people. It is true that there is no direct evidence on this point but we have got certain materials from which we could reasonably infer that atleast in or about July 1963 and thereafter accused No. 1 must be in the know of these facts. NATVARLAL Patel had been given a certificate or a Diploma Ex. 11 on 25 July 1963 There is a rubber stamp affixed on it State Government Approval Essential. It is significant to note that Kishorilal an employee of accused No. 1 has stated in his evidence that such rubber stamps were being affixed on these diplomas sent to the trainees. NATVARLAL Patel had been given a certificate or a Diploma Ex. 11 on 25 July 1963 There is a rubber stamp affixed on it State Government Approval Essential. It is significant to note that Kishorilal an employee of accused No. 1 has stated in his evidence that such rubber stamps were being affixed on these diplomas sent to the trainees. Accused No. 1 also in his statement recorded under sec. 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code admitted that he had such rubber stamps and such rubber stamps were being affixed. In Devendras certificate Ex. 54 dated 3rd February 1965 also there is such a stamp affixed. In Narharilal Daves certificate Ex. 234 dated 19th September 1963 also such rubber stamp is affixed. In the certificate of Chhotalal Vyas Ex. 137 dated 14th January 1961 and Surendraprasad Sevaks certificate Ex. 230 dated 21st December 1960 there are no such rubber stamps affixed. The learned trial Judge has observed that the reason for this absence of rubber stamps on those certificates was that these two witnesses were already practising as Medical Practitioners and that is why accused No. 1 must not have affixed them on those certificates. In our opinion this inference will not be a justified inference in the absence of any positive direct evidence or conclusive circumstantial evidence. It is true that one of them had in his own application referred to himself as a Doctor. But that will not necessarily mean that accused No. 1 knew that he was a Registered Medical Practitioner. In the certificate of Chandulal Ex. 75 dated 25th June 1965 also there is such a stamp affixed. It is quite possible to infer reasonably that in the years 1960 such a stamp may not have been affixed as accused No. 1 may not be conversant with the provisions of the Bombay Homoeopathic Act 1951 which were in force also in the area of Gujarat State. Accused No. 1 has in his statement Ex. 5 recorded under sec. 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code stated that he was not knowing the rules or laws of other States. A reference to the Bombay Medical Practitioners Act 1938 Bombay Act No. XXVI of 1938 and particularly sec. Accused No. 1 has in his statement Ex. 5 recorded under sec. 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code stated that he was not knowing the rules or laws of other States. A reference to the Bombay Medical Practitioners Act 1938 Bombay Act No. XXVI of 1938 and particularly sec. 32 of it as amended by the Bombay Act No. 51 of 1954 indicates:- (I) No person other than (i) a practitioner registered under Part II of this Act or (ii) a medical practitioner registered under the Bombay Medical Act 1912 or (iii) a person whose name is entered in the list mentioned in sec. 18 or a person whose name is entered in the register maintained or kept under the Bombay Homoeopathic Act 1951 shall practice any system of medicine. In Schedule II of the Bombay Homoeopathic Act 1951 clear reference is made regarding this amendment in sec. 32 of the Bombay Medical Practitioners Act 1938 The Gujarat Homoeopathic Act 1963 was published on 15th October 1963 and the appointed date for coming into force of that Act was 1st November 1963 It could be said on examination of these certificates that it may by that accused No. 1 may not be knowing about these relevant provisions prevailing in these States in the years 1960 But the circumstance that he affixed the rubber stamp State Government Approval Essential for Practice in the certificates that came to be given from 25th July 1963 and onwards till the date of the complaint clearly indicates that he must be in the know of these provisions. Even on coming to know about it latest by 25th July 1963 he had gone on making these representations without indicating in the Niyamavali Ex. 33 which is for the year 1964 that they would be entitled to practice subject to the approval of the concerned State Government. One may assume that prior to 1963 accused No. 1 may not be in the know of this fact and that is why he have made such representations and that may be a negligent act of his but not a designed act to cheat people. But even after his coming to know about these provisions which could be reasonably deduced from the aforesaid circumstances he had not made any changes and had not indicated that such approval was essential. But even after his coming to know about these provisions which could be reasonably deduced from the aforesaid circumstances he had not made any changes and had not indicated that such approval was essential. It was only after the people acted and he received money and he sent diplomas on those diplomas he fixed such rubber stamps. It is significant to note at this stage that Arjandev Ex. 141 Executive in-charge National Publicity through whom accused No. 1 got these advertisements published in various news papers throughout India deposed that the text was sent by accused No. 1. He produced the relevant documents. The letter dated 31st October 1964 was a typed one and was signed by accused No. 1. It was Ex. 144. It was with respect to releasing advertisement for Pandit Dev Datt Shastri Indian Homoeopathic College Adarsh Chemical Works and Swiss Watch Trading Co. He produced the letter Ex. 145 dated 26th November 1964 written by accused No. 1. It is a typed letter and contains the text of the advertisement which was written in Hindi in hand and signed by accused No. 1. The witness has further deposed that advertisements for Indian Homoeopathic College sent by Dev Datt Shastri i. e. accused No. 1 were sent to Sandesh and Jansatta Press and they were published on that strength at the instance of accused No. 1 as stated in Sandesh advertisement Ex. 123. In cross-examination he has stated that he used to get the drafts of the advertisements from accused No. 1 with a covering letter which he has produced in the Court. The draft was sent to accused No. 1 for permission to release it for advertisement. There was no change in the draft and it was approved by accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 wrote a letter along with the draft approved by him which he has produced in the Court. It thus appears from his oral evidence and the documents produced that even in the letter of November 1964 when the accused asked to release these advertisements as per the draft had not made any change to indicate to the people that the persons who will be entitled to practice on receipt of the diplomas from the institution will have to take necessary approval of the State Government. In the Niyamavali of 1964 also he did not make any such change. In the Niyamavali of 1964 also he did not make any such change. Taking into consideration the conduct of accused No. 1 throughout it is clear to us and we feel no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it was so represented not on account of any negligence or recklessness on the part of accused No. 1 but it was in pursuance of his evil design of mis-leading the people and making them believe that they would be entitled to practice independently in Homoeopathic medicine anywhere on receipt of the diplomas of such a college. Even apart from the question whether accused No. 1 knew about such legislation even if it is found that the representation made by him about the registration of the College with the Government of India was false and that was made with an intention as has been referred to by us repeatedly in the earlier part of the judgment that itself would be sufficient to hold accused No. 1 guilty of cheating. In our opinion on the aforesaid circumstances and materials brought on the record both these representations could be held to be untrue and false to the knowledge of accused No. 1 and they had been made with a view to cheat people. ( 12 ) AT this stage we will first refer to sec. 415 of the Indian Penal Code which defines cheating as under:-WHOEVER by deceiving any person fraudulently or dishonestly induces the 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. A plain reading of this section clearly indicates that this section contains two parts. So far as the first part is concerned the prosecution has to prove that a person who is accused of that offence fraudulently or dishonestly induced the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person. A plain reading of this section clearly indicates that this section contains two parts. So far as the first part is concerned the prosecution has to prove that a person who is accused of that offence fraudulently or dishonestly induced the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person. So far as the second part is concerned what the prosecution has to prove is that the accused by deceiving any person 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. For the purpose of application of that second part of sec. 415 of the Indian Penal Code it is not necessary to prove the fraudulent or dishonest intention. ( 13 ) THIS conclusion of ours gets support from the decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Ramji Lakhamsi v. Harshadrai Nanalal A. I. R. 1960 Bombay 268. The relevant observations made therein are at pages 268-269 para 3. They are as under :-SEC. 415 I. P. C. defines cheating. That section is substantially in two parts Deception by fraudulently or dishonestly inducing a person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain property is cheating under the first part of the definition. Deception of any person by intentionally inducing that person 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 cheating under the second part. Under the first part one of the important ingredients of cheating is that the act of the accused must be done fraudulently or dishonestly and the act must result in inducing the person deceived to deliver property or consent to retention of property. Under the first part one of the important ingredients of cheating is that the act of the accused must be done fraudulently or dishonestly and the act must result in inducing the person deceived to deliver property or consent to retention of property. For the application of the second part two conditions must be fulfilled (i) a person must be intentionally deceived to do or omit to do something which he would not otherwise do and (ii) such act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person deceived in body mind reputation or property. Sec. 420 I. P. C. is an aggravated form of cheating. If a person cheats another and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person. . . . . is liable to be punished under this section. Evidently in this case on the allegations made there is no delivery of property to any person or the making alteration or destruction of the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed. Nor can it be said that the delivery if any is by dishonest inducement. The accused are alleged merely to have induced the petitioner to enter into a contract of consignment of oil cake. An act is done dishonestly if it is done with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another (see sec. 24 I. P. C.) and it is not the case of the petitioner that in inducing the petitioner to enter into a contract there was any intention to cause wrongful gain to the accused or to cause wrongful loss to the petitioner. We are in respectful agreement with the interpretation put in regard to these two parts of sec. 415 of the Indian Penal Code by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. It will be significant to note that so far as our Indian Law is concerned Explanation has been added to sec. 415 of the Indian Penal Code which runs as under :-A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. 415 of the Indian Penal Code by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. It will be significant to note that so far as our Indian Law is concerned Explanation has been added to sec. 415 of the Indian Penal Code which runs as under :-A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. That has also got an important bearing in this case as this is a case where accused No. 1 intentionally emphasised on one fact to mislead the people to believe that this institution was an institution registered with the Government of India or by the Government of India. Though as a matter of fact the college itself was not registered. It was a trade name or a business name that was registered. Representation was made to make the people believe that this was an institution of a particular status as it was registered with the Government of India. It was not stated therein intentionally that it was a trade name or a business name that was registered and that was for the purpose of protecting the trading interest of a proprietor namely accused No. 1. It was a dishonest concealment of facts and such a dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section as stated in this Explanation. ( 14 ) SEC. 417 prescribes punishment for a simple offence of cheating. Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code relates to an aggravated offence of cheating providing punishment for an offender whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person. . . . . . . . . . Sec. 415 as seen earlier contains both parts. If there is delivery of property by a person deceived or cheated and if that is the result of a dishonest inducement then the offence that would be committed would be an offence punishable under sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no use of the word fraudulently - in sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. That is also to be kept in mind. The use is of the word dishonestly. ( 15 ) IT is contended by Mr. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no use of the word fraudulently - in sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. That is also to be kept in mind. The use is of the word dishonestly. ( 15 ) IT is contended by Mr. Amin that even if it is found that there were false representations made and the persons had acted on those representations no offence could be said to be committed as there was no wrongful loss or gain caused to anybody. This argument was advanced by him on the basis that none of these witnesses made any grievance for a period of two years. It was only when their statements were recorded by the police they said that they were cheated. They themselves did not file any complaint nor did they make any grievance by writing letters to accused No. 1 about having been cheated. In our opinion that circumstance has no bearing and has no relevance practically for the decision of the question whether an offence of cheating is committed. No doubt the conduct of theirs in not filing any complaint either before the police or in the Court etc. is a circumstance to be taken into account in judging their evidence and deciding about the reliability of their evidence 31 It was contended by Mr. Amin that the witnesses got the worth of the money sent by them meaning thereby that they got some training in Homoeopathic science from the books sent like the books Exs. 8 to 1. Admittedly these books related to imparting of some knowledge in this science. It is therefore contended that there could not be any wrongful loss to any of these witnesses. In our opinion this argument is not well founded. Obtaining the training or the diploma was not the only thing bargained for. They were made to believe that by getting such tuitions they would get diplomas or degrees from a college which was registered by or with the Government of India and on the strength of such diplomas or degrees they would be entitled to practice in Homoeopathic medicine anywhere. Admittedly they did not get such diplomas on the strength of which they could practice in this State of Gujarat. It is therefore evident that they would not have parted with these amounts if the tree facts were disclosed to them. Admittedly they did not get such diplomas on the strength of which they could practice in this State of Gujarat. It is therefore evident that they would not have parted with these amounts if the tree facts were disclosed to them. It was on relying upon those representations and believing them to be true that they parted with their money. They did not get what they bargained for. It is therefore evident that a wrongful loss has seen caused to them. Accused No. 1 also got a wrongful gain by making such false representations. If he had stated true facts these persons would not have parted with their money. Some of those persons whose evidence we have examined in detail have stated that they would not have parted with the amounts if they had known the real nature of this institution. It is therefore evident that accused No. 1 got by such deceitful means money which he was not entitled to. It is therefore admittedly a wrongful gain to him. In this case both these conditions are satisfied. But even assuming for the sake of argument that there was no wrongful loss caused to these persons that will not absolve this accused from the guilt in question. ( 16 ) IN Tulsi Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh A. I. R. 1963 Supreme Court 666 this position of law has been made quite clear by the Supreme Court. The relevant observations are:-FOR a person to be convicted under sec 420 I. P. C. it has to be established not only that he has cheated someone but also that by doing so he has dishonestly induced the person who was cheated to deliver any property etc. A person can be said to have done a thing dishonestly if he does so with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which a person is entitled while wrongful gain to a person means a gain to him by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled. These are the two facets of the definition of dishonesty and it is enough to establish the existence of one of them. The law does not require that both should be established. These are the two facets of the definition of dishonesty and it is enough to establish the existence of one of them. The law does not require that both should be established. In the same volume there is another decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration A. I. R. 1963 Supreme Court 1572 wherein certain observations have been made which are material for our purposes:- Mr. Amin has also made a reference to this decision. It is stated therein after referring to secs. 24 and 25 of the Indian Penal Code which define the words dishonestly and fraudulently as under:-THE word defraud includes an element of deceit. Deceit is not an ingredient of the definition of the word dishonestly while it is an important ingredient of the definition of the word fraudulently. The former involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss while the latter by construction excludes that element. Further the juxtaposition of the two expressions dishonestly and fraudulently used in the various sections of the Code indicates their close affinity and therefore the definition of one may give colour to the other. To illustrate in the definition of dishonestly wrongful gain or wrongful loss is the necessary ingredient. Both need not exist one would be enough. So too if the expression fraudulently were to be held to involve the element to injury to the person or persons deceived it would be reasonable to assume 9 that the injury should be something other than pecuniary or economic loss. Though almost always an advantage to one causes loss to another and vice versa it need not necessarily be so. Should we hold that the concept of fraud would include not only deceit but also some injury to the person deceived it would be appropriate to hold by analogy drawn from the definition of dishonestly that to satisfy the definition of fraudulently it would be enough if there was a non-economic advantage to the deceiver or a non-economic loss to the deceived. Both need not co-exist. In para 7 the classic definition of the word fraudulently found in Stephans History of the Criminal Law of England Vol. 2 at page 121 is quoted. At page 1075 the meaning of the words to deceive has been given by referring observations of Buckley J. in - In re London and Globe Finance Corporation Ltd. 1933 Ch. In para 7 the classic definition of the word fraudulently found in Stephans History of the Criminal Law of England Vol. 2 at page 121 is quoted. At page 1075 the meaning of the words to deceive has been given by referring observations of Buckley J. in - In re London and Globe Finance Corporation Ltd. 1933 Ch. 728 at page 732 :-TO deceive is I apprehend to induce a man to believe that a thing is true which is false and which the person practising the deceit knows or believes to be false. To defraud is to deprive by deceit:- it is by deceit to induce a man to act to his injury. More tersely it may be put that to deceive is by falsehood to induce a state of mind; to defraud is by deceit to induce a course of action. At pages 1575 and 1577 after referring to several decisions Indian as well as English the correct position has been summarised in para 14 as under :-THE expression defraud involves two elements namely deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss that is deprivation of property whether movable or of money and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body mind reputation or such others. In short it is a non economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always case loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver but no corresponding loss to the deceived the second condition is satisfied. In the instant case this discussion in our opinion is of really an academic interest as both the conditions (1) wrongful loss to the deceived persons and (2) wrongful gain to accused No. 1 are established. We therefore hold that this argument of Mr. Amin is not well founded. ( 17 ) WE well at this stage refer to the decision of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in State of U. P. v. Joti Prasad A. I. R. 1962 Allahabad 582 relied upon by Mr. Amin. We therefore hold that this argument of Mr. Amin is not well founded. ( 17 ) WE well at this stage refer to the decision of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in State of U. P. v. Joti Prasad A. I. R. 1962 Allahabad 582 relied upon by Mr. Amin. The case for the prosecution In that case in brief was :-THE two institutions (1) Nikhil Bharat Varsha Vidwat Parishad Vidyapith and (2) National Medical College were bogus and did not exist and no examinations were in fact conducted by the accused who through Raja Ram P. W. and the Niamavali Ex. Ka-83 made a false representation that the two institutions were registered and recognised by the Government and on the faith of the false representation Radhey Lal Mahendrapal and Ghanshyam Singh paid certain amounts to Raja Ram which were sent by him to the accused and paid Rs. 26/each for the different V. P. Ps. The accused thereby committed offences under sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In para 22 the relevant observations are:-THE contention on behalf of the accused is that the Niamavali does not say that the institutions were recognised by the Government. The accused knew that the institutions were not recognised by the Government and yet unless it was made to appear that the institutions were recognised by the Government he could acquire no business and therefore he had been very circumspect in introducing that in the Niamavali. This occurs only in the heading which reads; sahyogi HINDI SAHITYA SAMMELAN PRAYAG BHARAT DHARM MAHAMANDAL KASHI NI. MA. AYURVED VIDYAPITH DEHLI KE SAMAN GOVERNMENT SE REGISTERED SANSTHA RAJKIYA MANYA VIVIDH VISHVAVIDHYALAYASTH VIDVAJNANG KRUT. A translation of the above is as follows:- an institution registered by the Government like Sahyogi Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag Bharat Dharma Mahamandal Kashi All India Ayurveda Vidyapith Delhi recognised by the Government and the men of learning of various universities. An attempt has been made to explain away the expression Rajkiye Manya. It was urged that this qualified the words Vividh Vishwa Vidyalasth but this is not correct as there is a comma after Rajkiye Manya showing that Rajkiye Manya and Vividh Vishwa Vidyalasth are disjunctive clauses. We have therefore no doubt that the words Rajkiye Manya mean and were understood to mean recognised by Government. Evidently this was a fraudulent representation. It was urged that this qualified the words Vividh Vishwa Vidyalasth but this is not correct as there is a comma after Rajkiye Manya showing that Rajkiye Manya and Vividh Vishwa Vidyalasth are disjunctive clauses. We have therefore no doubt that the words Rajkiye Manya mean and were understood to mean recognised by Government. Evidently this was a fraudulent representation. It was on the basis of this representation that Radhey Lal Mahendrapal and Ghanshyam Singh were each induced to part with Rs. 26/at least paid for the V. P. Ps. The accused therefore committed an offence under sec. 420 I. P. C. and the order acquitting him of that offence is not maintainable. Relying upon these observations Mr. Amin urged before us that in the instant case the only fact mentioned in the Niyamavali was that this college was registered with or by the Government of India. There was no mention made that it was Rajkiye Manya meaning thereby that it was a recognised institution and therefore no offence could be said to have been committed by accused No. 1. In our opinion this argument is not well founded. In that case there was no doubt use of words Rajkiye Manya and on that basis a Division Bench of that High Court came to the conclusion that the representation made was a false representation and people acted on the basis of it. In that case it was not necessary to consider what would be the position if there was absence of the words Rajkiye Manya. It will be pertinent to note certain observations made in para 12 of that judgment at page 584. They are:-THE accused admitted that no examinations of Radhey Lal Mahendrapal and Ghanshyam Singh and other recipients of the certificates were conducted and the particulars of age etc. in the certificates were false. It is noteworthy that roll numbers were assigned and divisions given. True that had been done since long but it only shows that the accused could successfully dupe the people Registration was of names only and as is clear from the evidence of P. Mukherji (P. W. 12) anybody could get the names registered in the office of the Registrar of Assurance Calcutta. Obviously that is no proof of the existence of the institutions. In the instant case also there was such registration. Obviously that is no proof of the existence of the institutions. In the instant case also there was such registration. Though answer papers were not sent diplomas had been sent by V. P. PS. A show was made that there was such a college which had get a principal which had got a Board which had got a Managing Committee. Kishorilals evidence clearly indicates that there was no such board there was no principal and there was no examiner. It is thus evident that an attempt was made to impress upon the people that there was really such an institution having such authorities and the institution was registered with or by the Government of India. Really what Kishorilal has stated that this was a bogus college is in our opinion a statement of true fact and we see no reason to reject that part of his evidence. ( 18 ) WE will now come to the submission No. 5 of Mr. Amin as we have found that the first four submissions made by him are not valid submissions. It was urged that this was a case of a breach of contract. Accused No. 1 made an offer. That offer was contained in the prospectus. Offer was to give a training. Sending of money by the persons concerned was an acceptance of that offer. Putting them together would amount to a contract of training. It was not that the diplomas would entitle them to practice. Conferment of diplomas only signifies the completion of training. If there was a failure to give diplomas it would have amounted to a breach of contract. Admittedly diplomas were sent to these persons. He therefore contended that even assuming that there was a contract that the diplomas would enable the diploma holders to practice and that result was not achieved due to any legal bar on account of State legislations prevailing in some of the States of India it would at the most amount to a breach of contract. If the case had been so simple this argument could hold water. This is not the case where some difficulty cropped up as there was some State legislation and accused No. 1 being ignorant of it had acted in this manner. If the case had been so simple this argument could hold water. This is not the case where some difficulty cropped up as there was some State legislation and accused No. 1 being ignorant of it had acted in this manner. Accused No. 1 with a deliberate intention made these representations which were false to his knowledge and duped people and people were made to believe that such a state of facts existed though really those facts did not exist. It is not a case of a breach of contract. Intention of accused No. 1 at the time of the alleged inducement is quite clear and there is no escape from the conclusion that it was to deceive the people and people were in fact deceived and they acted under the deception and parted with their money and there was a dishonest intention on the part of accused No. 1 in so inducing. MR. Amin relied upon a decision reported in A. I. R. 1962 Supreme Court 1572 Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration to which we have already made reference earlier. That decision has no application to the facts of the present case. In para 15 at page 1577 of that volume relevant observations made after referring observations which we have already referred to earlier in para 14 of the judgment are:-NOW let us apply the said principles to the facts of the present case. Certainly Dr. Vimla was guilty of deceit for though her name was Vimla she signed in all the relevant papers as Nalini and made the insurance company believe that her name was Nalini but the said deceit did not either secure to her advantage or cause any non-economic loss or injury to the insurance Company. The charge does not disclose any such advantage or injury nor is there any evidence to prove the same. The fact that Dr. Vimla said that the owner of the car who sold it to her suggested that the taking of the sale of the car in the name of Nalini would be useful for income-tax purposes is not of any relevance in the present case for one reason the said owner did not say so in his evidence and for the other it was not indicated in the charge or in the evidence. In the charge framed she was alleged to have defrauded the insurance company and the only evidence given was that if it was disclosed that Nalini was a minor the insurance company might not have paid the money. But as we have pointed out earlier the entire transaction was that of Dr. Vimla and it was only put through in the name of her minor daughter for reasons best known to herself. On the evidence as disclosed neither was she benefited nor the Insurance company incurred loss in any sense of the term. In the instant case there is a clear reference in the charge itself about the delivery of property acting under deception and there is such clear and consistent evidence and we have found that evidence to be reliable and acceptable. The decisions relied upon by Mr. Amin namely in State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistri A. I. R. 1960 Supreme Court 391; Sudhdeo v. State of Bihar A. I. R. 1957 Supreme Court 466; Saiyad Ali Ebrahim v. State A. I. R. 1965 Gujarat 269; Karachi Municipality v. Bhojraj 16 Criminal Law Journal 706; Narayandas v. State A. I. R. 1952 Orissa 149 and Manika Asari v. Emperor A. I. R. 1915 Madras 826 have no material bearing to the points involved in the instant case. The present case is not a case of a breach of contract wherein the question involved would be regarding civil liability and not criminal liability. If we are not able to come to a conclusion about the requisite intention for the proof of this offence at the time this inducement was made accused No. 1 no doubt cannot be convicted of the offence in question. But in the instant case that intention could be clearly deduced without any doubt and without any hesitation we come to the conclusion that there was such a requisite intention of accused No. 1 at the time the inducement came to be made. We therefore hold that this submission No. 5 made by Mr. Amin is not a valid submission. .