JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application by way of revision directed against the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer,dated 16th December, 1971 whereby the conviction of petitioner Ghisa Lal under section 420 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code was maintained, although his sentence was reduced to two months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default thereof, to a further term of rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The circumstances which led the petitioner up to this Court deserve a detailed recall in order to appreciate the contentions raised before me. Mohammed Noor a resident of Bijainagar made an application to the Gram Panchayat Bijainagar that he may be advanced a loan in the sum of Rs. 525/- for the purposes of a poultry. The application came to be considered by the Gram Panchayat and, by its resolution No. 12 dated January 29, 1961,the recommendation made was that he may be given a taqavi loan in the sum of Rs. 250/- Ghisalal, Patwari, the applicant before me was sent this application for verification, on what date, we do not know and he recorded firstly that from Mohammed Noor nothing by way of taqavi was due and secondly that he wanted Rs. 500/- as a loan for poultry and in relation to which there is a house No. 304 consisting of four rooms made of pucca masonry and the plot of land is 36" x 82" and that is sufficient security and thirdly, that Mohammed Noor is a knowledgeable person in the business of poultry. He added that orders may be made for the grant of the loan and the copy of the house plan was appended. The Sarpanch there upon recommended to the Panchayat Samiti, the Gram Panchayat's resolution No. 12 dated 29th January, 1961 that Mohammed Noor may be given Rs. 500/-, out of which Rs. 250/- would be by way of loan and Rs. 250/- by way of grant. The Vikas Adhikari (Block Development Officer) recommended and the Secretary, Multi Purpose Society, Bijay Nagar also said that he did not owe any money to the Society and the Gram Sewak also reported that Mohammed Noor had an aptitude for the business of poultry and that he may be given the loan. It appears that on 16.3.1961 the loan was sanctioned 7 the deed executed by Mohd. It appears that on 16.3.1961 the loan was sanctioned 7 the deed executed by Mohd. Noor on 21.3.61 which deed is described as a deed of mortgage: Ex. P/7 Mohammed Noor received the amount on March 31,1961. It was discovered later that the house no. 304 in Bijai Nagar which was mentioned by Mohammed Noor in his application to be the property which he wanted to give by way of security, did not belong to him but to one Hiralal. A police report was made and a case under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Mohammed Noor & one under section 420 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Ghisalal Patwari. The trial Court convicted Mohammed Noor under section 420 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default thereof to further simple imprisonment for two months. The same was the fate of Ghisalal Mohammed Noor appealed but without success and probably there ends his case and nothing more needs be said about him Ghisalal, however, obtained benefit of reduction of sentence in his appeal. Still dissatisfied,he has come before me. 3. Mr. Singhvi learned counsel for Ghisalal urges firstly, that the representation said to have been made by Ghisalal in support of Mohammed Noor's application in the shape of the recommendation no where distinctly says that the house no. 304 belonged to Mohammed Noor. he further says that according to the prosecution's own evidence it was no part of the duty of Patwari Ghisa Lal to maintain any record of urban property and, therefore, if the report of Ghisa Lal could be interpreted in two ways the one which is consistent with his innocence must be accepted. His next submission is that Mohammed Noor could have even deceived Ghisa Lal when he made that report as it is no where proved that he derived any advantage from that report and at the highest he may have been negligent. Lastly, he urged that the mortgage deed no where proceeded on the basis of the hypothecation of house no. 304 in regard to which the representation is said to have been made which induced the Panchayat Samiti to part with money. 4. Mr. Lastly, he urged that the mortgage deed no where proceeded on the basis of the hypothecation of house no. 304 in regard to which the representation is said to have been made which induced the Panchayat Samiti to part with money. 4. Mr. B.R. Arora learned Deputy Government Advocate supported the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to this case and I have read more that once the report made by the Patwari to the Panchyat Samiti. It is obvious that the report relates to the solvency and the eligibility for the grant of taquavi loan to Mohammed Noor but it no where in so many words distinctly says that the applicant Ghisa Lal investigated about the title of house No. 304 and he found it to belong to applicant Mohammed Noor. Even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that it is a circumstantial link yet on the representations made so many persons as I have detailed above, there is a consistent reporting that Mohammed Noor deserves to be advanced the loan, for ought we know, Mohammed Noor's cleverness might have travelled in all directions in representing that the house belonged to him when in point of fact it was not owned by him. In any event, the report of the Patwari Ghisa Lal is a representation. Can it be said to have aided the representation of Mohammed Noor and thereby induced the Samiti to have parted with the money? I am prepared to go to the extent that with other reports it also had its fraction of inducement but it cannot be conclusively said that it exclusively aided the representation of Mohammed Noor because if the reader of this report had been careful enough doubts might have arisen in his mind whether house No. 304 did or did not belong to Mohammed Noor and he could have sought clarification. However, the real point is, was the property namely, house no. 304, to which this representation related, eventually became an effective factor for inducement in the granting of the loan? The answer seems to be in the negative and for the every obvious reason that the deed of mortgage does not specify this property and rests content with leaving its columns blank. 304, to which this representation related, eventually became an effective factor for inducement in the granting of the loan? The answer seems to be in the negative and for the every obvious reason that the deed of mortgage does not specify this property and rests content with leaving its columns blank. Could we say in these circumstances, that the Patwari's recommendation led the Samiti to grant loan and yet the mortgage deed is silence in regard to the property for which the Patwari made the report. The silence in regard to the property in the mortgage deed may have arisen out of sheer negligence but the accused is entitled to take advantage of it and I cannot, in all fairness, deny him of it. Thus, the case in strewn with doubt both in regard to the clarity of representation as well as the fact that the representation did not induce the Samiti in the granting of the loan and it is in such a fluid situation that he benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the accused. This respect of the matter did not receive the attention of the learned Additional Sessions Judge as such and, therefore, he proceeded on the assumption that the applicant Ghisa Lal made a wrong representation which led or induced the Samiti to act upon it. I, therefore, give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. 6. In the result, I accept this revision application, quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer, dated 18.12.71 convicting and sentencing the applicant, and acquit him of the charge under section 420 read with section 109, Indian Penal Code. He is on bail and need not surrender. *******