Order.- This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Sessions Judge, Metropolitan area, Bangalore reversing the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate (II Court), Bangalore discharging the accused K. C. Ravishankar and K.C. Ayya for offences under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that about 2 years back, the two accused persons came with the criminal intention and dishonestly induced the complainant to part with his property viz., land of the value of Rs. 98,950 and in that connection the first accused issued three cheques of the value of Rs. 20,000, Rs. 13,000 and Rs. 58,920 which were subsequently dishonoured. Similarly, the second accused issued two cheques of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 5,000 and the same were also dishonoured. It was stated that A-1 had approached the husband of the complainant and proposed that he would sell 1½ acres of his land at S. No. 126 of Kathriguppe village, Bangalore South for a sum of Rs. 40,000. In fact, the complainant was made to give a receipt of Rs. 20,000 to accused No. 1 although according to her she had not received any amount. Thereafter, on 10th September, 1971 a draft sale-deed was prepared which was subsequently registered. In this manner the ownership of the land was transfered to A-1. The cheques were dishonoured on 13th September, 1971 and 23rd September, 1971. A-1 sold this land to a Housing Co-operative Society on 20th September, 1971 and obtained Rs. one lakh and odd from them. The complainant’s case proceeded, that the two accused did pay Rs. 18,000 to the complainant on one date and thereafter on 1st June, 1972 they paid Rs. 1,000 more. As per the order of the learned Sessions Judge, a sum of Rs. 22,000 is still due and payable. It is further stated that on 15th November, 1971 some other sale transaction was conducted in favour of these two accused by the very same complainant and 3 acres 11 guntas of land was sold to them. After waiting for about 2 years the complainant brought the case to the Court of the Magistrate. Thereafter investigation followed under section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. On these allegations made in the complaint a charge-sheet was submitted under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After waiting for about 2 years the complainant brought the case to the Court of the Magistrate. Thereafter investigation followed under section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. On these allegations made in the complaint a charge-sheet was submitted under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Magistrate considered the case in all its relevant aspects and thought that the charge was groundless for the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly the two accused persons were discharged. Against that order, a revision was filed before the learned Session Judge and he reversed the order of the learned Magistrate as according to him a prima facie case was made out against the two accused and as such he has directed the Magistrate to frame the charge under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The present revision is filed by the two accused persons against that order of the learned Sessions Judge. 4. At the very outset it has to be made clear, that the order of the learned Sessions Judge in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, is under challenge in this Court. On the facts of the case whether he could exercise the revisional jurisdiction that is really the point in issue. It is obviously correct that revisional jurisdiction is somewhat restricted and the mere fact that the learned Sessions Judge, left to himself, would have thought fit to frame a charge, will hardly be a ground for his interference. The legality and propriety of that order was to be considered. Whether the learned Sessions Judge has exercised a valid jurisdiction, that has to be considered by this Court. In Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra1, their Lordships emphasised that it cannot be said that the Court at the stage of framing the charge has not to apply its judicial mind for considering whether or not there is a ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. The order framing the charge does substantially affect the person’s liberty and it cannot be said that the Court must automatically frame the charge merely because the prosecuting authorities by relying on the documents referred to in section 173 consider it proper to institute the case. The order framing the charge does substantially affect the person’s liberty and it cannot be said that the Court must automatically frame the charge merely because the prosecuting authorities by relying on the documents referred to in section 173 consider it proper to institute the case. The responsibility of framing the charge is that of the Court and it has to judicially consider the question of doing so. Both, the Courts below seem to have been made aware of this observation of the Supreme Court. Certain glaring circumstances were made out in the case which required serious consideration. 5. The transactions started some time 2 years back from the date of the filing of the complaint. Before 10th September, 1971 the talk took place for the sale of the land and in that connection, a receipt was also written by the complainant, for Rs. 20,000. Her subsequent statement that the accused themselves tore off that receipt was a factor to be accounted for. According to the two accused the amount was paid and a receipt was given. There was no occasion for tearing it of. Thereafter the draft sale-deed was prepared and even that draft was registered, with the result that the ownership of the land passed in favour of the accused. It is also manifest that repeated cheques were received by the complainant without demur although the said cheques were subsequently dishonoured by the bank. Accused No. I in turn sold the very same land to the Housing Co-operative Society and the complainant very well knew that fact. Admittedly, Rs. 18,000 was received by the complainant at one time. Subsequently she received Rs. 1000 more although some more amount is due and payable to her. Above all another transaction of sale of land took place on 10th November, 1971 between the very complainant and the two accused. All these transactions decidedly indicate that it was mote or less a dealing in several contracts. An intention to deceive was very much wanted at any rate, at the initial stage. It was held in Bageshwar Misser v. Mt. Khandari Kuer and the State1, that the criminal intention to deceive a person at the time of the offence said to have been committed is necessary and a mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution. It was held in Bageshwar Misser v. Mt. Khandari Kuer and the State1, that the criminal intention to deceive a person at the time of the offence said to have been committed is necessary and a mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution. Although the subsequent conduct will be a factor to be considered to infer the criminal intention, but that may not be the sole criteria. The entire ambit of the action imputed against the accused has got to be considered. This view did find support in M/s. Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal2. It was held that to hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the premise. Could it be stated in the present case, that at the time of making the promise the two accused had the intention to deceive? It is apparent it could not be so. After she received Rs. 20,000 for which the complainant gave a receipt, the sale draft was written and then the sale-deed was registered. The mere fact that a few cheques were dishonoured by the bank, would not by itself go to prove any criminal intention. 6. The learned Magistrate observed that it was complainant’s husband who was dealing with the two accused and not the complainant herself. Thus, the deception, if any, was between the husband of the complainant and the accused. 7. The learned Sessions Judge made certain curious observations. He stated: “The very fact that a charge-sheet had been submitted is a sufficient indication that there was some prima facie truth in the allegations made in the complaint...................A mere framing of a charge does itself prove the guilt of the accused person.” Both the above noted observations speak for themselves. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have been influenced by the idea that the mere submission of a charge-sheet by the Police proved a prima facie case against the accused. Similarly, he thought that the framing of a charge by itself will prove the guilt of the accused. He has obviously fallen into a serious error. In fact the legality and propriety of the order made by the learned Magistrate could not be challenged before him. The Sessions Judge has not exercised proper revisional jurisdiction. 8. Similarly, he thought that the framing of a charge by itself will prove the guilt of the accused. He has obviously fallen into a serious error. In fact the legality and propriety of the order made by the learned Magistrate could not be challenged before him. The Sessions Judge has not exercised proper revisional jurisdiction. 8. Thus, considering all the relevant aspects of the case, I find that a case of interference is made out. The revision is allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the two accused shall stand discharged of the offence under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.