JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The Petitioners stand convicted u/s 420/34, Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for 3 months. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the Petitioners, who are leaders of a particular political party, came to the village Baramana and called the Adibasis of the village to the Bhagabat Ghar in that village. There Petitioner Upendranath told the villagers present that Government of Orissa would lease out fallow lands to the Adibasis who would submit application for the same. On that account he asked the villagers to pay Rs. 11-50 Paise each to Petitioner Sachchidananda Samantray who would make arrangements for the settlement of fallow lands with each contributor. On the said understanding some of the villagers including p.ws. 1 to 5 and 8 collected Rs. 499-50 Paise and paid the same to the accused persons in three instalments. Several months passed thereafter, but the accused persons did not take any steps in that direction. The villagers approached the accused persons who deferred the matter by saying that they would get the lands in due course. When the villagers became disappointed they filed a petition (Ex. 1) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhubaneswar stating the above facts. The Sub-Divisional Officer forwarded that petition to the Officer-in-charge. Chandaka P.S. for investigation and necessary action. The Officer-in-charge on receiving the aforesaid petition from the Sub-Divisional Officer booked a case against the Petitioners. 3. The accused persons deny the charges and plead, inter alia, that this false case has been foisted against them by their political rivals, who could not defeat Petitioner Upendranath in an election in the Chandaka Panchayat Samiti in 1967. It is further stated by them that Radhashyam Narendra, whom Petitioner Upendranath defeated in the said election, being a forest contractor has foisted this false case against the Petitioners with the help of the Adibasis who work under him as coolies. Two defence witnesses have been examined in support of the defence case. 4. The trial Court found that the Petitioners dishonestly induced p.ws. 1 to 5 and 8 and their co-villagers to deliver money to them on the plea that they would procure Anabadi lands for them on lease from the Government and because of such false representations the villagers paid a sum of Rs. 499-50 Paise to the Petitioners. 4. The trial Court found that the Petitioners dishonestly induced p.ws. 1 to 5 and 8 and their co-villagers to deliver money to them on the plea that they would procure Anabadi lands for them on lease from the Government and because of such false representations the villagers paid a sum of Rs. 499-50 Paise to the Petitioners. The Court below finds that these two Petitioners went to the village of p.ws. 1 to 5 and 8 and represented before the said witnesses and the villagers that the Petitioners would be able to procure Anabadi lands for those villagers who would pay Rs. 11-50 Paise to the Petitioners towards expenses for the said purpose. Accordingly Rs. 499-50 Paise was paid to the Petitioners by the said witnesses and their co-villagers. It also finds that the Petitioners were not the persons in authority nor the agents of the State Government to grant lease of waste lands to the Adibasis and so they had no business to collect money from the villagers on that account. It holds that the said representation by the Petitioners was false and they had dishonest intention in collecting money from the villagers by misrepresenting facts to them. 5. Mr. Ram the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, challenged the correctness of the findings and conclusions of the Court below both on grounds of law and fact. At first he urged that both the Courts have completely misapprehended the evidence on record and have arrived at findings which are not based on the evidence on record. He drew my attention to certain relevant portions of the evidence and its discussion in the impugned judgment in order to show that the Court below completely lost sight of or did not attach proper importance to certain patent and significant discrepancies on important material particulars regarding the alleged collection of money, the quantum thereof and its payment to the Petitioners. It is alleged by p.ws. 1 to 5 and 8 that the total amount of money was paid to the Petitioners in three instalments. According to p.w. 1, a sum of Rs. 499-50 paise was paid to the accused persons; while according to p.w. 2 a sum of Rs. 500/- was paid to them and according to p.w. 8 only Rs. 400/- in all was paid to the Petitioners. According to p.w. 1, a sum of Rs. 499-50 paise was paid to the accused persons; while according to p.w. 2 a sum of Rs. 500/- was paid to them and according to p.w. 8 only Rs. 400/- in all was paid to the Petitioners. Further according to p.w. 1, 4 and 5, by the 2nd instalments a sum of Rs. 99-50 Paise only was paid to the accused persons, but according to p.w. 3 the said amount was paid not by the 2nd instalment but was paid by the third instalment and Rs. 200/- was paid by the second instalment. P.w. 3 while stating about the payment of the aforesaid money by the 3rd instalment has also stated that he paid that amount along with p.w. 5 and others. He has also stated about the place at which and the persons in whose presence the said money was paid. His evidence to the above effect is directly in conflict with the evidence of p.ws 1, 5 and 8. The discrepancies appearing in their evidence to the above effect assume importance as p.w. 5, who according to p.w. 3 was present along with p.w. 3 at the time of the payment of Rs. 99-50 Paise, states completely a different story with regard to the payment of the said and the other instalments. Apart from the aforesaid discrepancies regarding the payment of Rs. 200/- and Rs. 99-50 Paise, there is also discrepancy about the place where actually the third instalment was paid. According to p.w. 1, the third instalment was paid in their own village when the Petitioners came to collect the same; but according to p.w. 2 it was paid in the houses of the accused persons in another village. There is discrepancy in their evidence regarding the place of the payment of the first instalment also. Moreover, according to p.w. 1 no accounts were maintained either for the collection of money from the villagers, or for the payment of the same to the Petitioners. But p.w. 2, who according to the prosecution was also in-charge of the collection of the money, states that they maintained accounts regarding the same. Further whilst p.w. 1 speaks that money was collected from 46 villagers, p.w. 2 says that money on that account was collected from about 60 villagers. But p.w. 2, who according to the prosecution was also in-charge of the collection of the money, states that they maintained accounts regarding the same. Further whilst p.w. 1 speaks that money was collected from 46 villagers, p.w. 2 says that money on that account was collected from about 60 villagers. There are some other discrepancies on material particulars regarding the collection of money, the amount collected, the quantum and place and the manner in which the said money was paid to the Petitioners. The Court below has tried to explain away some of the discrepancies, but I am not impressed with its reasonings to that effect and the convering given by it to such inconsistencies and incongruities on important features of the case. Thus the prosecution case of payment of money to the Petitioners is not free from doubt, and more so when viewed in the perspective of the case put forward in defence. 6. It was next urged by Mr. Ram that even if it was accepted only for argument's sake that some money was collected by the villagers and was handed over to the Petitioners on the above account, the acceptance of the money by the Petitioners, if at all, in the facts and circumstances of this case, would not constitute an offence u/s 420/34, Indian Penal Code. In this connection certain facts appearing in the prosecution evidence may be stated. P.w. 4 has stated that even prior to the payment of the said amount to the Petitioners the villagers had requested Petitioner Upendranath to arrange fallow lands for them on lease basis. Petitioner Upendranath admittedly was a leader of a political party; the other Petitioner was his party-man, and the villagers, as stated by p.w. 1, had faith in the Petitioners P.w. 3 has stated that the Petitioners had never before deceived the villagers at any time P.w. 1 states that four or five days after the payment of the money, the Petitioners took the left hand thumb impressions of the subscribers on plain papers. Soon thereafter they made enquires from the Petitioners and also from the Tahasil office to ascertain if petitions to the above effect were filed by the Petitioners. When they were told in the Tahsil office that no applications had been received from the villagers on that account, they filed the petition Ext.. Soon thereafter they made enquires from the Petitioners and also from the Tahasil office to ascertain if petitions to the above effect were filed by the Petitioners. When they were told in the Tahsil office that no applications had been received from the villagers on that account, they filed the petition Ext.. 1 before the Sub-Divisional Officer informing him a bout the above-mentioned fact. There is discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the alleged enquiries made by them to the above effect from the Petitioners and from the Tahasil Office. Apart from the discrepancies on that account it is seen that the Petitioners' had actually made a move for the settlement of land with the villagers, as thirty petitions to that effect had actually been filed in the office of the Tahasildar. 7. To hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating it has to be established that his intention was dishonest at the time of the alleged promise or inducement. Such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred to a reasonable certainty from the mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfil the promise or could not act in accordance with what he had stated before. It is of course true that the subsequent acts and the conduct of the accused may furnish materials for judging the intention of the accused at the time of the alleged promise or inducement, but his subsequent act or conduct is not the sole criterion for judging the said intention. So long the criminal intention of the accused at the time of the alleged inducement or promise is not established, the accused can not be held guilty of an offence u/s 420, Indian Penal Code. My above view gets support from the Supreme Court decision in State of Kerala v. Pareed Pillai and Anr. 1972 Crl. L.J. 1243, and the Patna High Court decision in Bageshwar Misser Vs. Mt. Khandari Kuer and the State, . In Devi Ram's case AIR 1953 J&K 22, it has been held: ...a pre-conceived intention of not carrying out the terms of an agreement has to be established and not to be presumed from the mere receipt of money and not working subsequently according to the terms of the agreement. Mere receipt of money would not be cheating unless it is shown that it was received with the pre-conceived intention of denying it later on. Mere receipt of money would not be cheating unless it is shown that it was received with the pre-conceived intention of denying it later on. If the intention is changed subsequently it would not be cheating. That being the well settled law on this point, it becomes difficult for me to hold, on the facts and circumstances of this case, that the criminal intention required to be established in this case has been brought home against the Petitioners on the evidence on record. In the present case, as stated above, the villagers at first requested the Petitioners to arrange for the settlement of some fallow lands in their favour. The Petitioners admittedly were persons associated with a political party and the villagers had lot of faith in them (p.w. 1). Being thus requested by the villagers the Petitioners probably asked them to collect some money so that necessary applications may be filed for the settlement of fallow lands in favour of the subscribers and to meet necessary expenses in that connection. If at all money was collected under such circumstances as handed over to the Petitioners for the aforesaid purpose it cannot be said that at the time when the Petitioners received (if at all) the said money they had the requisite dishonest or fraudulent intention to deceive the villagers. Mr. Das, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State, could not show anything convincing from which it can be said that accused persons at the time of receiving any amount from the villagers had the requisite intention required u/s 420, Indian Penal Code: It is also in evidence that soon after some money was given to the Petitioners they took the thumb impressions of the subscribers in plain papers. It was actually found that thirty applications for settlement of lands with the subscribers had been filed. Even if it is found that those applications were filed after a long lapse of time (though there is no definite data to arrive at any such conclusion), one can at best accuse the Petitioners of negligence, and cannot, on the facts and circumstances of the case, ascribe dishonest or fraudulent intention to them on that account. 8. Even if it is found that those applications were filed after a long lapse of time (though there is no definite data to arrive at any such conclusion), one can at best accuse the Petitioners of negligence, and cannot, on the facts and circumstances of the case, ascribe dishonest or fraudulent intention to them on that account. 8. On the above considerations I am satisfied that the offence u/s 420/34, Indian Penal Code is not brought home against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, and as their conviction in this case is not well founded. 9. In the result, therefore, the conviction of the Petitioners u/s 420/34. Indian Penal Code and the sentence passed against them thereunder are hereby set aside, and they are acquitted of the same.