JUDGMENT : M.M. GUPTA, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of Respondent Ram Dhanl Pandey by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, on charges under Sections 420, 466 and 471 IPC. 2. The facts of the prosecution case are that the Respondent had gone to the shop of Harihar Prasad and Vishwanath Prasad which are close to each other in village Ghatampur within the Police Circle of Ahraura on 11th October 1971. He had represented to him that in tube well department there were five or six vacancies of tube well operators and he would be helpful in getting them appointed. He also represented to them that for this purpose he will have to be paid Rs. 200/- and also the expenses that will have to be incurred in this connection. Both of them believed him as he had been successful in getting other persons appointed in the tube well department. Harihar Prasad requested him to get him appointed and also Jagdish Prasad and Kailash. He demanded a sum of Rs. 600/- from them. Harihar Prasad arranged to pay Rs. 600/- to the Respondent after pawning ornaments. Vishwanath Prasad for the appointment of his son as operator in the tube well department paid Rs. 480/- to the Respondent. He also assured them that he would obtain appointment letters for them within a week. On 21st October 1971 the Respondent Ram Dhani Pandey came to Harihar Prasad's house and told him that he had obtained the appointment letters for Jagdish Prasad and Kaliash. He further demanded a sum of Rs. 200/- from him for Harihar Prasad's appointment and told him that he was going to Varanasi and would bring appointment letter for him on 23-10-1971. The Respondent was believed by them. Harihar Prasad with the appointment letters of Jagdish Prasad and Kailash went to the office of the Superintending Engineer, Tube-Well Department, Varanasi along with Vishwanath Prasad and his son Algu Ram. They went to that office on 22-10-1971 and produced the appointment letters handed over to them by the Respondent to the Superintending Engineer. Harihar Prasad then was informed that these appointment letters were forged and that they should get such a person arrested by the Police. When they were returning from the office of the Superintending Engineer at about midnight in Maidagin Harihar Prasad saw the Respondent coming in a rickshaw. Harihar Prasad then was informed that these appointment letters were forged and that they should get such a person arrested by the Police. When they were returning from the office of the Superintending Engineer at about midnight in Maidagin Harihar Prasad saw the Respondent coming in a rickshaw. He was followed and was seen entering Bharat Lodge. A report was lodged at Police Station Chetganj by Harihar Prasad, Vishwanath Prasad and Algu Ram on 23-10-1971 at 1 A.M. 3. The Investigation of the case was taken up by Sri Ved Murti Bhatt, SO Chetganj. After lodging of the report he went to the Bharat Lodge and succeeded in arresting the Respondent after causing him minor injuries. On a search being taken a sum of Rs. 250/- in cash and a forged letter of appointment in the name of Algu Ram was recovered from his possession. Its recovery memo was duly prepared by him. Since the offence was committed at Mirzapur the papers were transferred to Mirzapur. At Mirzapur the case was investigated by Sri Nand Lal Singh, SI. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet against the Respondent. 4. The Respondent denied all the allegations and claimed that he was falsely implicated. 5. The prosecution examined Harihar Prasad PW 1 and Krishna Lal Gupta PW 5 among the witnesses of fact. PW 5 Krishna Lal Gupta is the Superintending Engineer who denied his signature on the letters of appointment. PW 8 Nand Lal is the Investigating Officer. PW 9 Ved Murti Bhatt is the SO Chetganj who had arrested the Respondent. Ram Adhar PW 7 is the Headmoharrir of Police Station Chetganj. 6. The learned Sessions Judge after analysing the evidence came to the conclusion that the basic story against the Respondent was proved beyond any reasonable doubt but after discussing the question whether the offence fell within the four corners of Section 420 IPC he came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the Respondent deceived any of the two persons fraudulently or dishonestly. He also did not find the charges under Sections 466 or 471 IPC proved. He accordingly acquitted the Respondent. 7. The State being dissatisfied with the acquittal of the Respondent has come up in appeal against his acquittal. 8. He also did not find the charges under Sections 466 or 471 IPC proved. He accordingly acquitted the Respondent. 7. The State being dissatisfied with the acquittal of the Respondent has come up in appeal against his acquittal. 8. Harihar Prasad PW 1 has asserted that on 11th October 1971 the Respondent had come to him and had told him that there were five or six vacancies in the tube-well department and that he would be able to get them appointed on payment of a sum of Rs. 200/- per appointment. The Respondent was readily believed as he had already got some people appointed. Vishwanath Prasad PW 2 who has his shop adjoining to that of Harihar Prasad PW 1 supports him. He also states the same facts. Both these witnesses believe that the Respondent could be instrumental in getting them appointed. Harihar Prasad PW 1, therefore, on this assurance for the appointment of himself and that of Jagdish and Kailash 'who are his brother-in-laws paid him Rs. 600/-. Vishwanath Prasad PW 2 claimed that he paid Rs. 400/- to him and also Rs. 80/- towards expenses. The Respondent had demanded a further sum of Rs. 200/- from Harihar Prasad PW 1 but since he did not have that money at that time he could not pay it. The Respondent returned back on 21st October 1971 to inform both these witnesses that he had obtained appointments for Jagdish and Kailash. He also handed over to them appointment letters Exs. Ka-1 and Ka-2. Harihar Prasad PW 1 was again told that if he himself paid Rs. 200/- he would also get the appointment. He also paid him a sum of Rs. 200/- at that time. Thereafter on 22-10-1971 Harihar Prasad PW 1 along with Vishwanath PW 2 and Algu went to the Tube-Well department office at Varanasi where the appointment letters were shown to the Suptd. Engineer who told them that those letters did not contain his signatures and were forged. A first information report signed by Harihar Prasad PW 1 Vishwanath PW 2 and Algu was lodged at Police Station Chetganj. Thereafter the Respondent was arrested from Bharat Lodge the same night (23-10-1971). On his search being taken a forged appointment letter in the name of Algu Ex. Ka-3 was also recovered from his possession. The fact of recovery of Ex. Thereafter the Respondent was arrested from Bharat Lodge the same night (23-10-1971). On his search being taken a forged appointment letter in the name of Algu Ex. Ka-3 was also recovered from his possession. The fact of recovery of Ex. Ka-3 is proved by PW 9 Ved Murti Bhatt S.C. Chetganj. The testimony of these witnesses is also supported by Budhi Ram PW 3. He states that in his presence the Respondent had assured Harihar Prasad and Vishwanath PW 2 that he could obtain employment for them or their relations and in that connection Harihar Prasad PW 1 paid him Rs. 600/- and Vishwanath PW 2 paid him Rs. 480/-. He had also told them that he would bring them appointment letters within a week. All witnesses had no reason to get the Respondent falsely implicated. 9. Their evidence does not leave any room for doubt that the Respondent had represented to Harihar Prasad PW 1 and Vishwanath PW 2 on 11th October 1971 that he could obtain employment for them and that would need payment at the rate of Rs. 200/- per appointment. It is established that on that date Harihar Prasad paid Rs. 600/- and a sum of Rs. 480/- was paid by Vishwanath to the Respondent. It is further established that on 21-10-1971 the Respondent gave appointment letters Exs. Ka-1 and Ka-2. Ex. Ka-1 is the appointment letter in the name of Jagdish Prasad purporting to be issued under the signature of Sri K.L. Gupta, Adhikshak Abhiyanta. Similarly, Ex. Ka-2 is in the name of Kailash. Another appointment letter Ex. Ka-3 in the name of Algu was recovered from the possession of the Respondent when he was arrested. On these facts the learned Sessions Judge has also reached the same conclusion. 10. The question that arises is whether on these facts any offence u/s 420 IPC or 471 IPC was made out or not. 11. The main ingredient of the offence of cheating as defined in Section 415 IPC is that there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement to 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. 12. 12. In the instant case it is no doubt true that Harihar Prasad had stated in his cross-examination that, "Ramdhani Ko Jab Hamne Rupaya Diya the Us Samaya Unhone Mujhe Koi Dhokha Nahin Diya the Va Na Mujhe Phuslaya Tha. Naukari Ke Lalach Men Rupaya Diya Tha". This may be true at the time that he paid the money he did not realise that he was being deceived. He was under the impression that he would get employment on the payment that he made to the Respondent but at the same time the Respondent must have been aware of the fact that he cannot exercise any influence with the authorities of the tub-well department to get these persons appointed. Apart from it the evidence clearly shows that even after receiving these amounts he returned back and handed over appointment letters and further extracted a sum of Rs. 200/- from Harihar Prasad. There is, therefore, clear dishonest inducement on the part of the Respondent to Harihar Prasad and Vishwanath in accepting the money after persuading them to part with their money for obtaining employment for them. There can be no doubt about the fact that the appointment letters were forged as is evident from the statement of Sri K.L. Gupta P.W. 5 the Superintending Engineer who had denied his signature or the issue of the appointment letters by his office. Thus, offence of cheating u/s 420 has clearly been made out and the learned Sessions Judge committed an error in holding that no offence u/s 420 IPC was made out. He also committed an error in coming to the conclusion that there was no dishonest inducement on the part of the Respondent in persuading the complainants in parting with such huge sums to him. 13. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be disputed in respect of the offence u/s 466 IPC. There is no evidence that the Respondent himself had forged the appointment letters. No offence, therefore, u/s 466 IPC has been made out. 14. However, the offence u/s 471 IPC is clearly made out, as the Respondent used the forged certificates by handing them over to Harihar Prasad and Vishwanath which led them to believe that they were genuine appointment letters issued by the tube well department. A clear offence u/s 471 IPC, therefore, was made out. 14. However, the offence u/s 471 IPC is clearly made out, as the Respondent used the forged certificates by handing them over to Harihar Prasad and Vishwanath which led them to believe that they were genuine appointment letters issued by the tube well department. A clear offence u/s 471 IPC, therefore, was made out. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, also in error in holding that no offence u/s 471 IPC had been made out. 15. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, wholly unjustified in acquitting the Respondent. 16. It appears that the Respondent is carrying on his nefarious designs for obtaining employment and cheating the helpless unemployed persons. The case, therefore, deserves deterrent punishment. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that. u/s 420 IPC a sentence of one year and a fine of Rs. 1, 500.00 shall meet the ends of justice in this case, and a further sentence of one year shall be the proper sentence u/s 471 IPC. 17. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The Respondent is convicted under Sections 420 IPC and 471 IPC. Under the former section he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,500.00. In default of payment of fine he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. u/s 471 IPC he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The order of acquittal of the Respondent u/s 466 IPC is confirmed. The Respondent is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out his sentences imposed against him.