JUDGMENT M.M.Gupta, J. 1. These revisions have been filed by Jai Karan and Bholey who were convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bijnore, under Sections 420, 461, 457 and 380 IPC. Under Sections 420, 457 and 380 IPC they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under each count while under Section 461 IPC they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. They were acquitted of the charge under Section 120-B IPC. The learned Sessions Judge maintained their conviction and sentences under Sections 420, 461 and 38)) IPC ; he, however set aside their conviction and sentences under Section 457 IPC. 2. The facts of the prosecution as they emerge are somewhat interesting. If true they are an example of how trickesters can take people into confidence and after exercising deception deprive them of their valuables and cash. One Harbel Singh resided in village Mirzapur Pallawala within the police circle of Dhampur in district Bijnor. He lived there along with his wife Smt. Gurdev Kaur, daughter Balvendra Kaur and son Jaksendra Singh. He was rich farmer who had amassed sufficient wealth. Jaikaran was an astrologer and often visited their home. On 7th February, 1971 Jai Karan went to the house of Harbel Singh when he was not at his house. Smt. Gurdev Kaur showed the horoscope of her daughter to Jaikaran and wanted to know about the marriage prospects of her daughter. Jai Karan applicant told her that good fortune was to come her way and asked her to get puja done to propitiate the goddess but if she failed to get that puja done she may suffer. He asked her to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as expenses for the performance of the puja. She, however, considered that the amount was too much and told him that she did not have that much amount in her house. Jai Karan applicant, however, told her that she was telling a lie and a much larger sum was in her house. She, however, paid a sum of Rs. 500/- for performance of the puja. When her husband returned home Smt. Gurdev Kaur narrated the facts to him. 3. Three days later the two applicants Jai Karan and Bholey along with one Guruji came back to their house. She, however, paid a sum of Rs. 500/- for performance of the puja. When her husband returned home Smt. Gurdev Kaur narrated the facts to him. 3. Three days later the two applicants Jai Karan and Bholey along with one Guruji came back to their house. They told them that the goddess was pleased with them and they will be performing the puja in the temple of Ratan Garh. Both Harbel Singh and Smt. Gurdev Kaur were taken to the temple at Ratangarh where Havan was performed. Thereafter goddess appeared before them and told Harbel Singh that he would get Maya but before it could be given to him she demanded a sum of Rs. 15, 000/- and a number of articles viz. Thais, glasses, Dhotis, Saris, beddings and blankets. If these articles were not offered she would take the life of their son. As a proof of Harbel Singh getting the Maya he was asked to dig the ground beneath the place where Smt. Gurdev Kaur was sitting. The earth was dug and a serpent was found sitting over the Kalash. The serpent was placed aside by Bholey and sovereigns and silver coins were shown to Harbel Singh and Smt. Gurdev Kaur. Harbel Singh agreed to give the articles demanded by the goddess but wanted time to arrange for them. 4. On the following day Harbel Singh and Smt. Gurdev Kaur along with the applicant went to Noorpur where they purchased four glasses and four Thais for a sum of Rs. 48/- from the shop of Krishna Kumar, a brassware merchant. They further purchased four Dhotis and four Saris from Rohtas Singh for a sum of Rs. 80/-. Jai Karan and Bholey told them that they would pick up the articles after three or four days. After three or four days both the applicants went to the house of Harbel Singh. They paid Rs. 15,000/- and articles and beddings worth Rs. 200/- were given to them. Three or four days later they again arrived at Harbel Singh's house. They were informed that the Goddess was not pleased with them and they wanted Harbel Singh to sell his land. In pursuance of that advice Harbel Singh sold his land by separate sale deeds to Fakira, Abdul Salam and Sirajuddin. 200/- were given to them. Three or four days later they again arrived at Harbel Singh's house. They were informed that the Goddess was not pleased with them and they wanted Harbel Singh to sell his land. In pursuance of that advice Harbel Singh sold his land by separate sale deeds to Fakira, Abdul Salam and Sirajuddin. Sometimes later, Jai Karan and Bholey applicants went to the house of Harbel Singh and told the complainant and his wife to accompany them to Vidur Kuti. When they reached there, they also found Guruji. Both Harbel Singh and his wife were taken to the river Ganga where a one eyed person met them. He was described as Naradji. Naradji told them that they were under the sin of killing a cow and he would have to give 101 cows in charity. He demanded a sum of Rs. 2,211/- as price of these 101 cows. The applicants informed them that this price would have to be paid in the grove of Nehtaur on 26th April, 1971. The husband and wife went to Nehtaur where they were met at the Bus Station by the applicant. They took them in the grove where Murli and Naradji were present. When Harbel Singh wanted to pay this amount to Naradji he directed him to pay it to Guruji (Murli). Guruji was paid this amount. 5. After another five or six days Jai Karan and Bholey applicants came to tie house of Harbel Singh and asked him and his wife to go to Triveni Temple. The applicants took them to Mouzum- pur Naraini where Murli and Naradji also met them. They proceeded to Triveni Temple and on their way they stayed at the house of one Bhusee. From there they proceeded to the river at about 3 A. M. for Puja. They were also informed that if they disclosed this matter to any one they would be destroyed by the goddess. From there they returned to their house. 6. After seven or eight days, Jai Karan and Bholey took Harbel Singh and his wife to Jhalru for performing the Puja. Guruji and Naradji also met them at the railway station. In the temple at Jhalru, Devi appeared before them and told them that the wealth was fallowing them. Guruji again showed them the Kalash full of silver and gold coins. Guruji and Naradji also met them at the railway station. In the temple at Jhalru, Devi appeared before them and told them that the wealth was fallowing them. Guruji again showed them the Kalash full of silver and gold coins. Goddess had also asked them to leave the place before dawn. It may be also mentioned here that Harbel Singh had also sold his land in village Mirzapur Pallawalla and in village Khudistnagar to Sahu Vikram Kumar. 7. On 1-6-1971 the applicants accompanied by Murli and Naradji went to the house of Harbel Singh. They were informed by Harbel Singh that he has sold his land and was waiting for their arrival. The applicants informed them that the Devi was pleased with them and they would perform the puja at his house the following night. After the puja had commenced Harbel Singh was told by them to go to sleep. He would be informed when the goddess appeared before them. In the meantime Harbel Singh and his family members went to sleep in the Gher. At about 4 A. M. when he went to milk his buffalo Harbel Singh found that the applicants had decamped with the sum of Rs. 23,000/- after breaking open the box which was kept in the room. It was also found that they had broken the wall and had escaped from there. 8. Harbel Singh discovered that he was duped and was deprived of [his money. He had also sold about 58 bighas of land at their instance. He called his brother from Meerut. They found Bholey in Ratangarh. He bad promised to return the money but when nothing happened he lodged the first information report on 26-6-1971. The investigation of the case was started by S. D. Soti. He recorded the statements of Harbel Singh, Smt. Gurdev Kaur, Kumari Balvendra Kaur and Jakshendra Singh. The applicant Bholey was arrested on 13-9-1971. Bholey was made Baparda and was also sent to jail bapardah. The site plan was also prepared by the Investigating Officer on 13 -9-1971. The identification proceedings regarding Bholey and Murli took place after the report was made by the Investigating Officer. The identification parades were conducted by Sri B. D. Varma, Magistrate on 10 -1- 1972. The applicant Bholey was identified by Km. Balvendra Kaur and Jakshendra Singh while Murli was correctly identified by Jakshendra Singh, Harbel Singh and Smt. Gurdev Kaur. The identification proceedings regarding Bholey and Murli took place after the report was made by the Investigating Officer. The identification parades were conducted by Sri B. D. Varma, Magistrate on 10 -1- 1972. The applicant Bholey was identified by Km. Balvendra Kaur and Jakshendra Singh while Murli was correctly identified by Jakshendra Singh, Harbel Singh and Smt. Gurdev Kaur. Statements of other witnesses were also recorded. Investigation was later on taken up by C. I. D. Inspector. On completing the investigation the charge- sheet was submitted against the applicants and Murli. 9. All the applicants denied that they had cheated either Harbel Singh or his wife. Jai Karan applicant further claimed that there was enmity between Ratan Singh, brother of Harbel Singh and himself, and, he was therefore, falsely implicated. It was also claimed by Bholey that before identification he was shown to the witnesses. The other applicants also denied having cheated Harbel Singh or his wife. 10. The prosecution case rests on the testimony of Harbel Singh PW 2, Smt. Gurdev Kaur PW 5, Kumari Balvendra Kaur PW 6 and Jakshendra PW 7. Rohtas Singh PW 8 corroborates the statement of Harbel Singh about the purchase of four female Dhotis, four gent dhoties, from his shop in Noorpur. Sri Krishna Kumar PW 9 supports the prosecution case regarding the purchase of Thais and tumblers from his shop in Noorpur. Both these witnesses claim that the two applicants had also accompanied Harbel Singh when they purchased those articles from their shops. PW 11 Fakira, PW 14 Sirajuddin and Madan Lal PW 15 claim to have purchased land from Harbel Singh in between 24-3- -1971 and 17-5-1971. PW 18 Banwari was examined to establish that he saw the applicants and Murli going to the house of Harbel Singh. Applicant Jai Karan had told him that all these persons were going to perform Puja at the house of Harbel Singh. Besides these witnesses prosecution has examined the Magistrate who conducted the identification proceedings, formal witnesses and the two investigating officers. The two applicants did not examine any witness in their defence. Both the courts below believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the applicants. They rejected the defence version. 11. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge had framed charges against the applicants and Murli under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The two applicants did not examine any witness in their defence. Both the courts below believed the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the applicants. They rejected the defence version. 11. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge had framed charges against the applicants and Murli under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. He had further charged them under Section 420 IPC for cheating Harbel Singh and his wife on different dates of different sums. In pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy the respective dates of cheating given are 7th February, 1971, 12th February 1971 and 17th February, 1971 and 27th April, 1971. They were further charged under Section 461 IPC for dishonestly breaking open the locks of the box belonging to Harbel Singh and depriving him of Rs. 23,000/-. They were further charged under Section 380 IPC and 457 IPC. 12. Smt. Gurdev Kaur PW 1 stated that Jai Karan had gone to her in the absence of her husband when she enquired from him about the future marriage prospects of her daughter. It was at that time that Jai Karan applicant told her that "Tumhare Bhagya Khulnewale Hain. Devi ki puja karna, Jaise Main Kahoon Vaise Karti jao, Meri Baat Kisise Kahna Mat Yadi Kisi Se Batlaogi To Devi Tumhara Naash Kar Dengi." When she enquired about the expenses for the puja of the Devi, the applicant Jai Karan demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from her. When she stated that she had not that sum with her, he told her Bahin Jee Tum Jhut Bol Rahi ho Tumhare Ghar Bahut Paise Hain, Devi Tumhara Naash Kar Degi." She in fact had Rs. 6,000/- in the house at that time. She thought that he might have known about it. She, however, gave him Rs. 500/- for the puja. This statement of her is corroborated by the testimony of PW 6 Km. Balwendra Kaur, her daughter, and by Jakshendra Singh PW 7 her son. So far as their testimony is concerned no reason has been pointed out for not placing reliance on their testimony. Both the courts have relied on their statements and I have no reasons for not accepting their evidence so far as this incident is concerned. Balwendra Kaur, her daughter, and by Jakshendra Singh PW 7 her son. So far as their testimony is concerned no reason has been pointed out for not placing reliance on their testimony. Both the courts have relied on their statements and I have no reasons for not accepting their evidence so far as this incident is concerned. The learned counsel for the applicants has, however, argued that if a person takes money for performance of puja for the welfare of the family no offence of cheating would be made out. Section 415 IPC defines the offence of cheating as follows :- "Cheating-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". " The explanation to this section mentions "Dishonest concealment of facts is deception within the meaning of this section". 13. The main ingredients of the offence of cheating is "the fraudulent or dishonest inducement". Section 25 IPC is as follows : "A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with the intent to defraud but not otherwise." "Dishonesty" has been defined under Section 24 IPC which means "whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly". In the instant case if on the simple request or on the advice of Jai Karan Smt. Gurdev Kaur had paid for the performance of the puja for the improvement of marriage prospects of her daughter it would have neither been a fraudulent or a dishonest representation. The applicant Jai Karan had told her that if she disclosed this matter to anyone they would be destroyed by the goddess. He also told her that she had larger sums of money than Rs. 5,000/- in henhouse. Both these acts led Smt. Gurdev Kaur to pay applicant Jai Karan a sum of Rs. 500/-. The applicant Jai Karan had told her that if she disclosed this matter to anyone they would be destroyed by the goddess. He also told her that she had larger sums of money than Rs. 5,000/- in henhouse. Both these acts led Smt. Gurdev Kaur to pay applicant Jai Karan a sum of Rs. 500/-. It is quite probable that if he had not told her that she: and her family would be destroyed by the Devi she may not have paid such a large sum of Rs. 500/-. Both the elements of fraud and dishonesty are involved in the act of Jai Karan applicant. In AIR 1938 Patna 185-Akhil Kishore Ram v. Emperor, the appellant advertised a Gupta Mantra and it was claimed that the objects which cannot be achieved by supporting lacs of rupees may be had by repeating the Mantra Seven times. There was no necessity of undergoing any hardship to make it effective. It was effective without any preparation. It was further claimed than she, whom you want, may be very hard hearted and proud, but she will feel a longing for you and she will want to be for ever with you, when you read this Mantra. This is a "Vashi Karan Mantra". It will make you fortunate, give; you service and advancement, make you victorious in litigation and bring you profit in trade. A reward of Rs. 100/- was offered if proved failable." The price of this Mantra was only Rs. 27/-. The complainant who answered this advertisement after sending the mousy order also received further instructions in which it was stated that the 'Mantra' should be read seven times and the moon be looked at for 15 minutes without shutting up the eyes for a moment. He should have sound sleep with the desired object in the heart after that he will succeed. Further injunctions were to take cow milk, fruit and sweet of pure fresh cow's milk during the day and night time and should bathe at night to make the mind pure before the process was begun and a fruther injunction was that no other persons should be taken into confidence however dear and nearly related he may be. If it was done it will lose all its effects. 14. If it was done it will lose all its effects. 14. The trial court came to the conclusion that the condition attached to the Mantra was impossible or at least beyond the power of ordinary persons. The advertisement had further given the assurance that there was no necessity for hardship or preparation and the condition referred to was contrary to that assurance without which they would not have answered the advertisement. Rowland, J., held that he had no doubt that the offence charged was committed and the applicant rightly convicted. In the case before me the applicant, Jai Karan, represented that in the event of the disclosure of the matter to a third person the wrath of the goddess would fall on them. They would be destroyed. It is not known what were the spiritual attainments of the applicant Jai Karan and what was his communion with the goddess but from the manner and circumstances of the case there can be no doubt that in invoking the wrath of the goddess he was only trying to influence Gurdev Kaur to part with the money and in fact she parted with Rs. 500/-. This in my opinion clearly amounts to acting dishonestly and fraudulently to induce Srnt. Gurdev Kaur to part with the money. The charge under Section 420 IPC was clearly and fully made out against applicant Jai Karan. 15. The second incident followed a few days later when worship was performed at Ratangarh Temple where the complainant Harbel Singh along with Smt. Gurdev Kaur were taken. Goddess appeared in black clothes wearing a Mukut with a sword in her hand. She told them "Meri Bhet Mujhey Do Nahin To Main Tumhare Bade Ladke Ki Bhet Le Lungi." Ham Dono Ne Hath Jodkar Kaha Ki Deviji Ham are bade Ladke Ko Maaf Kardc Ham Tumhari Bhet Denge. Hame Bhet Batado. "Devi Ne Kaha Ki 15,000/-Rupiya, Char Dhoti, Char Sari, Char Thal, Char glass, Do Kambal, Ek Bistara, Ek Talwar Mujhe Do." Ham Ne Kahaki Yeh Kise Den Devi Ne Kaha Mera In Bhakton (Ya Ne Tino Mulziman Hazir Adalat Ko) De Do.'' Thereafter the place was dug from where a serpent was found sitting over a Kalash. The serpent was removed by Guruji and sovereigns and silver coins were shown to the witnesses. The serpent was removed by Guruji and sovereigns and silver coins were shown to the witnesses. He was told that after he had given the cash and articles mentioned by the Devi to the applicants and their companions he would get all that wealth. After this assurance he purchased Dhotis, Thais and other articles from Noorpur. The purchases by the complainant and his wife of those articles finds corroboration from the testimony of Rohtas Singh PW 8 and Krishna Kumar PW 9. The appearance of the Devi clearly without any doubt appears to be a got up affairs and a confidence trick in order to create confidence in the complainants mind so that he may be prevailed upon to make payments. The threat of taking the life of his son by the Devi if all these articles and cash were not given amounts to a very great deception and but for this the amounts and articles may never have been given. The learned counsel for the applicants has, however contended that the act of the applicants might amount to extortion but it would not amount to cheating. It may be that this act may constitute extortion also but there can be no doubt about the fact that their act also amounted to deception which led the victim to believe in its truth and in acting accordingly to part with the money and the articles. Moreover, there was also the assurance along with the threat that Harbel Singh would get the wealth that was shown to him in the Kalash. I have, therefore, every reason to hold that the acts in question fall within the definition of cheating as defined in Section 415 IPC. 16. A few days later the applicants again came to them for taking the Bhet and rest of the articles which were mentioned by the Devi. Thereafter Guruji was to come and dig out the wealth otherwise Devi would be displeased and would take the life of the son. At that time a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid and a blanket was also given. Four days later the applicants again returned and told them that he should sell his land and take land elsewhere and this was mentioned as a command of the Devi to them. At that time a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid and a blanket was also given. Four days later the applicants again returned and told them that he should sell his land and take land elsewhere and this was mentioned as a command of the Devi to them. The sale of the land as stated by prosecution witnesses Fakira, Siraj Uddin and Madan Lal has been found proved by the courts below. It is further stated that the applicants took them to Vidurkuti where at the Ganga a one eyed person called Naradji met them and told them that they were under sin of cow killing and they would get rid of that sin by giving him charity of 101 cows. These cows would have to be left in Heaven. A sum of Rs. 2,211/- was demanded. This sum is staled to have been paid later on to the so-called Guruji on 26th April, 1971. It is also claimed that thereafter they were again asked by the applicant to go to Triveni Mandir where they were given oath of secrecy otherwise on disclosure they would be destroyed by the Devi. So far as the taking of the complainant and his wife to Vidurkuti, meeting of Naradji at the Ganga, payment of Rs. 2,211/-towards price of 101 cows, the act of taking them to the Triveni Temple and of giving oath of secrecy are concerned these facts are not mentioned in the FIR which was lodged several months later the last act of deception. Explanation of the applicant about his being confused or nervous in not mentioning this incident is highly unsatisfactory and both the courts were hardly justified in believing this part of the case, 17. It is further claimed that thereafter the applicants along, with the so called Guruji came and started doing puja in their house and in that night when the whole family was asleep they decamped by breaking open the wall. The lower court has however not believed the story of escape through the wall but it has still believed the story of their decamping with Rs. 23,000/-. The lower appellate court has found the charges proved against the two applicants. I see no reason for not accepting their conclusions. 18. The lower court has however not believed the story of escape through the wall but it has still believed the story of their decamping with Rs. 23,000/-. The lower appellate court has found the charges proved against the two applicants. I see no reason for not accepting their conclusions. 18. However, so far as Bholey applicant is concerned he was stated to be the person present at the time of purchases of articles of clothing and utensils along with the complainant and his wife. The shopkeepers of these articles were produced in evidence but they were not sent to identify Bholey applicant. The persons who were sent to identify Bholey applicant were Harbel Singh, Smt. Gurdev Kaur, Km. Balvendra and Jakshendra Singh. Kumari Balvendra Kaur made one mistake in identifying Bholey. Jakshendra correctly identified him. It is somewhat surprising that Harbel Singh and Smt. Gurdev Kaur who were with applicants Bholey and Jai Karan in all the incidents narrated by Harbel Singh and Smt. Gurdev Kaur for unknown reasons failed to identify applicant Bholey. The lower appellate court has not even referred to the absence of evidence of identification by these two principal witnesses who were victims of cheating. The trial court has also ignored it. in such circumstances there is no reason why Bholey applicant should not have been given the benefit of doubt. In my opinion the charges under Section 423 IPC, 461 IPC and 380 IPC were fully made out against the applicant Jai Karan. He has, therefore, been rightly convicted. The revision of bholey applicant is allowed. His conviction and sentence are set aside. He is on bail. He need not surrender. The revision of Jai Karan is hereby dismissed. His conviction and sentence are upheld. He shall be taken into custody to serve out his sentence of imprisonment as he is on bail. Revision allowed.