JUDGMENT J.M.L. Sinha, J. - This revision is filed against the order dated January 5, 1968 passed by Sessions Judge, Aligarh dismissing a revision filed by the applicant against an order dated December 4, 1967 passed by ADM Aligarh. 2. Hari Shanker (P.W.I), servant of Bhimsen, Prop. of Swastik Dairy Farm, Aligarh, filed a complaint in the court of the ADM (J) Aligarh, for the prosecution of Om Prakash, Sri Raj, Suresh and Subhash for their prosecution under sections 420 and 420/ 109 IPC. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused first obtained eight cans of cream and eight empty cans from the firm of Bhimsen on 4/5-5-1966 costing Rs. 1837/-and that again on 21 /22 5-1966 they obtained the same amount of cream and empty cans costing Rs. 2037/66 P. It is also alleged in the complaint that the accused neither made payment of the cream nor returned the empty cans supplied to them and thereby committed the aforesaid offence under Sections 420 and 420/109 IPC. 3. The trial court summoned only Om Prakash, opposite party to stand the trial. The remaining per- sons, arrayed as accused in the complaint, were not summoned by him. 4. Om Prakash, opposite party admitted the first transaction of cream but pleaded that the price of the cream had been paid and the empty cans had been returned to the complainant's firm through Babu Lal, an employee of that firm, and that an acknowledgement regarding the same had been obtained from him in his Bahi on May 6, 1966. The opposite party however denied having entered into any transaction with complainant's firm on 21/22-5-1966. 5. The complainant examined three witnesses to prove his case besides filing some documents. The witnesses examined were Hari Shanker, complainant (PWI), Babu Lal (PW2), Janki Prasad (PW3) and Bhimsen Sharma (PW4). 6. The trial court after taking in to consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that t it was a case of civil liability and that in any case there was exhorbitant delay in the filing of the complaint. In the result the trial court discharged the accused opposite party, and dismissed the complaint. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the learned ADM the applicant came up in revision before this Court. In the result the trial court discharged the accused opposite party, and dismissed the complaint. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the learned ADM the applicant came up in revision before this Court. The revision was first heard l,y M.N. Shukla, J., who, through his order dated October 27, 1969, allowed the same and directed further enquiry. It appears that on another application moved on behalf of the opposite party the order dated October 27, 1969, passed by my brother M.N. Shukla J., was withdrawn through an order dated October 31, 1972, and the, revision was directed to be lilted again for hearing. The revision was first listed before my brother M.N. Shukla, J. but it was released by him. That is how this revision has come up before me for disposal. 8. I have heard learned counsel on either side and have also perused the record of the case. 9. Briefly stated, the allegation made on behalf of the complainant is that on 4/5-5-1966 the opposite party obtained one consignment of cream together with eight empty cans and that again on 21/22-5-1966 he obtained another consignment of cream and eight empty cans from the complainant's firm; that the opposite party neither returned the empty cans nor paid the price of the cream and the cans and, therefore, committed an offence under Section 420 IPC. 10. No elaborate argument is needed to say that every breach of contract does not constitute an act of cheating. In order to substantiate an offence of cheating against another person it is necessary for the complainant/prosecution to prove that the accused had a dishonest intention at the time he entered into the contract. Applying that principle to the present case it should follow that it was necessary for the applicant to prove that the opposite party, when he entered into the alleged transactions dated 4/5-5-1966 and 21/22- 5-1966, did not have any intention to pay the price thereof Merely because the opposite party is shown to have entered into those transactions and later, either refused to pay the price thereof, or resiled from the transaction, it cannot be concluded that the opposite party did not have any intention of paying the price when he entered into those transactions. 11. I have gone through the evidence of all the witnesses examined by the complainant. 11. I have gone through the evidence of all the witnesses examined by the complainant. Hari Shanker (P WI), merely deposed that the opposite party entered into the two transactions referred to earlier, that acknowledgement of the consignments having been delivered to the opposite party were obtained but when the price of the consignments was demanded from the opposite party, he refused to pay the same. There is no- thing in the evidence of Hari Shanker (PW 1), which may lead to the conclusion that the opposite party did not have any intention to pay the money when he entered into the alleged transactions with the complain- ant's firm. Babu Lal (P.W. 2) merely stated that he himself delivered the consignment relating to the second transaction to the opposite party. He further stated about a quarrel that took place between him and the opposite party a few days later. That should not, however, have any bearing on this case. The fact remains that the evidence of Babu Lal also does not contain anything which' could warrant a conclusion that the/opposite party did not have any intention to pay the price or return the cans when he entered into the alleged transactions. Janki Prasad (PW 3) deposed that he had accompanied Babu Lal to the firm of opposite party, that Babu Lal delivered eight cans at the firm of the opposite party but the latter did not pay any price nor did he return the cans. It would thus appear that Janki Prasad (PW 3) also did trot state anything which could lead to the conclusion that the opposite party had a dishonest intention on the date on which the transactions in question were entered into. Bhimsen (PW 4) is the proprietor of the firm. He deposed about the two transactions entered into between the applicant's firm and the opposite party. He further deposed that when Babu Lal was sent to obtain payment of the two consignments, the opposite party did not make any payment and asked him to send his master (Bhimsen) himself. The witness also stated that when he himself went to the opposite party's firm on May 25, 1966 and insisted on payment of the price of the consignments, the opposite party maltreated him. The remaining part of the statement of Bhimsen is not very material. The witness also stated that when he himself went to the opposite party's firm on May 25, 1966 and insisted on payment of the price of the consignments, the opposite party maltreated him. The remaining part of the statement of Bhimsen is not very material. i/Prom the synopsis of the statement of Bliimsen it would appear that it could also lead to the conclusion that the opposite party had any dishonest intention from the outset. 12. Learned counsel for the applicant stressed that according to the statement made by Om Prakash opposite party in the trial court, he had paid the price of the first consignment to Babu Lal. Learned counsel contended that the fact that Om Prakash opposite party set up a false plea regarding payment of the price and return of empty cans, is by itself a prima facie evidence of the fact that opposite party had a dishonest intention from the very outset. I am afraid, I cannot agree with that contention. Instances are not wanting where people take loan from another without there being any dishonest intention at that point of time and later on refuse to make payment and even set up a false plea of payment. Undoubtedly such a case cannot involve an offence of cheating. It may be stated at the cost of the repetition that to make out an offence of cheating it must be shown that on the date on which the money was obtained, the person obtaining money had no intention whatsoever to repay the same. Now, in the instant case merely because (gym Prakash, opposite party, set up a plea of having paid the price of the first consignment of cream and of having returned the empty cans, it cannot be concluded that the opposite party did not have any intention to 'I pay the price or return the cans when he entered into that transaction. 13. Learned counsel for the applicant then contended that in support of his plea of payment the opposite party also produced in the trial court his Bahi containing a fake acknowledgement dated May 6, 1966 regarding receipt of price by Babu Lal. 13. Learned counsel for the applicant then contended that in support of his plea of payment the opposite party also produced in the trial court his Bahi containing a fake acknowledgement dated May 6, 1966 regarding receipt of price by Babu Lal. It was urged that it should be presumed that this acknowledgement had been fabricated by the opposite party on May 6, 1966 and since he went to the applicant's firm thereafter on 21/22-5-1966 to obtain another consignment of cream, there should be no escape from the conclusion that the applicant had a dishonest intention at least at the time when he entered into the second transaction regarding supply of cream. I have given my careful. thought to this argument but I am unable to accept the same. For the purposes of this revision I can proceed on the assumption that the acknowledgement contained in the opposite party's bahi regarding payment of the price of the first transaction of the cream is possibly not a genuine acknowledgement. There can, however, be no presumption of the fact that this acknowledgement had been prepared on May 6, 1966. It is true that the acknowledgement carries that date. The acknowledgement with that date could however be brought into existence later on after the opposite party had been served with a notice. 14. Though it is not of much consequence, it may also not be out of place to add that the allegation that the opposite party did not have an intention to pay the price of the two consignments of cream when he entered into those transactions with the applicant is wanting in the complaint itself. All that is stated in the complaint is that the opposite party entered into the two transactions. Further on it is stated that he entered into those transactions with a view to cheat the complainant's firm of the amount of Rs. 3074/66 P. 15. Coming to the second reason assigned by the trial court for dismissing the applicant's case, that too can- not be said to be devoid of all sub- stance. It is a well recognised principle of criminal a law that the commission of the offence should be brought to the notice of the police or the court with as much promptitude as may be possible in the case. It is a well recognised principle of criminal a law that the commission of the offence should be brought to the notice of the police or the court with as much promptitude as may be possible in the case. It is the own case of the applicant that the second transaction took place on 21/22-5.1966. The complaint for the prosecution of the opposite party was, however, filed on May 4, 1967 i.e. after about one year. I have gone through the entire complaint. It does not contain an explanation for the delay in filing it. Learned counsel for the applicant could also not refer me to anything in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses offering a cogent explanation for that delay. The fact that the complaint was lodged with such exorbitant delay is indicative of the fact that the applicant was deliberating over the matter and made embellishment to drag it into a criminal court to pressurise the opposite party to pay the money. I therefore n that t is revision has no substance. 16. This revision accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.