JUDGMENT Mahavir Singh, J. 1. THIS is a revision by Pyare Lal against the order of the Sessions Judge, Faizabad dismissing his appeal against his conviction under Section 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. THE relevant facts are that the appellant along with 11 persons moved an application for registration of Cooperative Society in the name of "Harijan Plastic Uddyog Sahkari Samiti." The Society was registered. Thereafter certain loans of Rs. 6,000/- were sanctioned from the Industries Department and grants of Rs. 3,000/-and Rs. 6,00/ were sanctioned by the Harijan Welfare Department and Block Pura respectively. The applicant was elected as a Chairman of the said society and it was alleged later when there was a change of Chairmanship that the signature of one of the members namely, Bajrang Lal were forged. The applicant was thereupon charged for having cheated the registration department in getting the society registered and other departments for getting the loans or grants sanctioned. So a charge sheet was filed against him under Section 420 and 468 IPC by the CID. The applicant admitted that he was Chairman of the society and he got it registered and later it took loans from Industries, debt and grants from other deptts. But he denied to have forged signature of Bajrang Lal on the application form. He stated that he had given the application form to Chhedi Lai his brother and it was he who gave it back to him after getting it signed from Bajrang Lal. 3. THE Judicial Magistrate held that the signature of Bajrang on the application form were forged. He also was of the view that this forgery was made by the applicant himself. He also held that by that act he succeeded in getting the Society registered and also got loans and grants from different departments and thereby he committed the offences under 'Sections 468 and 420 IPC. He was sentenced to two years' RI under each offence. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. ON appeal the learned Sessions Judge upheld the finding of the trial court that the signature of Bajrang Lal were forged by the applicant and further that because of that forgery, the registration authorities were induced to register the Society and other departments were induced to sanction the loans and grants. So he dismissed the appeal. 4. ON appeal the learned Sessions Judge upheld the finding of the trial court that the signature of Bajrang Lal were forged by the applicant and further that because of that forgery, the registration authorities were induced to register the Society and other departments were induced to sanction the loans and grants. So he dismissed the appeal. In revision it has been contended that the findings of the courts below that the applicant forged the signatures of Bajrang Lal was not warranted from the evidence on record and secondly, that even if it was so, the offence u/Ss. 420 and 468 IPC cannot be said to have been proved. 5. ON the first point this is not disputed before me that the signatures of Bajrang Lal purporting to be on the applications Exts. Ka-1 and Ka-2 were not of Bajrang Lal. It is only contended that the applicant had not made those signatures. 6. ON the record there is no direct evidence to show that the signatures were made by the applicant in presence of any of the witnesses. There is only the evidence of the expert Mohan Prasad Gupta (PW 8) who on a comparison of the sample handwriting of the applicant and the disputed signatures was of the. view that the specimen handwritings tallied with that of the applicant. The learned Judicial Magistrate had also observed that he too had compared the two signatures and had found that the same to be tallying. So far as the opinion of the Magistrate is concerned, it has no technical value. He is not an expert further even the opinion of an expert, even if it may be said to be of reliable nature, is not conclusive on the point that the signatures alleged to have been forged, were really made by the applicant. The opinion of the expert is only corroborative and not substantive piece of evidence. There is no substantive evidence on record to show that the applicant had forged the signatures. On the other hand the case of the applicant appears to be quite plausible. Bajrang is his real nephew. There was no enmity between the two. He was thus not expected to have forged his signatures himself. Bajrang was available. His father was also there. On the other hand the case of the applicant appears to be quite plausible. Bajrang is his real nephew. There was no enmity between the two. He was thus not expected to have forged his signatures himself. Bajrang was available. His father was also there. So under these circumstances his statement that something might have been done by his brother Chhedi Lal to whom he had given the application form to obtain the signatures of his son Bajrang Lal, appears to be acceptable. Thus it cannot be said to have been conclusively proved that the applicant had forged the signatures of Bajrang Lal on Exts. Ka-1 and Ka-2. 7. EVEN if for the sake of argument, it may be conceded that the signatures of Bajrang Lal were forged by the applicant, that also would not lead to the proof of the offences under Sections 420 and 408 IPC. 8. TO prove an offence under Section 420 IPC the following ingredients are to be proved :- (i) There is cheating ; (ii) Thereby dishonestly induces others ; and (iii) The person so deceived delivers any property to any person : "Cheating" has been defined under Section 415 IPC. It requires that some person should have been deceived. This should have been done fraudulently and the person so deceived should have delivered any property to any person which he would not have done if he was not so deceived. None of these ingredients can be said to have been proved in this case; A Co-operative Society can be registered if the number of applicants is 10 or mora (vide Section 6 (2) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1966). So even if Bajrang was not a member, there remained 11 applicants and, therefore, the society could have been registered. The Registrar, therefore, could not be said to have been cheated in registering the Co-operative Society by including a name of a wrong person. 9. IN the same way the allegation of deception of other departments also falls through. The society has been granted loans and grants as it was a registered society. No significance was attached by any of the departments that but for Bajrang Lal being a member, the loans or grants could have been given. So there is no cheating of other departments as well. 10. IT has also not been done dishonestly. The society has been granted loans and grants as it was a registered society. No significance was attached by any of the departments that but for Bajrang Lal being a member, the loans or grants could have been given. So there is no cheating of other departments as well. 10. IT has also not been done dishonestly. The word 'dishonestly' has been defined in Section 24 IPC to mean doing of any thing with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. The applicant would not be getting any gain, what to say of wrongful gain, by making Bajrang Lal a member of the Society. It is the society as such, which gets the profit by doing any business. The profits are distributed among all the members. So rather, the members being more, the profit margin per member will be reduced. There is also no wrongful loss to Bajrang Lal by any person because he cannot be charged with any liability. No loan has been given in his name specifically and appropriated by some other person. So there is also no dishonest intention of the applicant. It has been held in State v. A. Pureed Filial, AIR 1973 SO 326 and A. K. Base v. State, 1974 CrLJ 22o, that dishonest intention is essential part of cheating. It has also been held that dishonest intention must be shown to exist at the time of making the promise. 11. THERE is no evidence on record nor even a suggestion as to what wrongful loss or wrongful gain could have accrued to the applicant or to Bajrang Lal by making him a member. Actually this fact further corroborates the version of the applicant that he had not forged his signatures and that his signature must have been obtained through his father. The applicant cannot be said to be liable for the same. Thus no offence under Section 420 IPC can be said to have been proved. 12. FOR the offence under Section 468 IPC also it is essential that the forgery must have been committed for the purposes of cheating. Cheating as defined in Section 415 IPC has not been found proved in this case as discussed above. So no offence under Section 468 IPO is proved. 12. FOR the offence under Section 468 IPC also it is essential that the forgery must have been committed for the purposes of cheating. Cheating as defined in Section 415 IPC has not been found proved in this case as discussed above. So no offence under Section 468 IPO is proved. The learned Government counsel contends that even if the major offence is not proved, the applicant can be convicted for the simple offence of forgery punishable under Section 465 IPC which is a minor offence and covered by the major charge u/S. 465 IPC. That argument is also not acceptable. Forgery which is punishable under Section 465 IPC is defined under Section 463 IPC. It requires that the false document must have been made with intent (a) to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, (b) or to support any claim or title, (c) or to cause any person to part with any property, (d) or to enter into any express or implied contract (e) or to intend to commit fraud or that fraud; may be committed. 13. NONE of these ingredients of Section 463 IPC cited above is also established in this case. There was no intention to cause damage to any person nor had he any intention to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property. The learned Government counsel contends that the intention was to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed. This is also not established. The word "Fraud' has not been defined. The word 'fraudulently' has been defined u/S. 25 IPC. It takes place when a person does that thing with an intent to defraud. The idea of fraud is that there should be a deception of injurious nature, that is resulting in some advantage to doer of a secular character. As already mentioned, the applicant was not getting any advantage personally by that kind of deception. So even this offence is not proved. Thus no offence can be said to have been proved against the applicant. He is, therefore, entitled to acquittal. 14. IN the result the revision is allowed. The conviction of the applicant; under Sections 420 and 468 IPO are set aside. He is acquitted of these charges. He is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties; discharged. Revision allowed.