JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - Petitioner was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh, under Sections 419 and 468, Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to R.I. for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further R.I. for one month, on each count, (the sentences to run concurrently). In appeal before the Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, the conviction and sentence have been maintained. Hence the revision. 2. Prosecution case is that one Banshidhar Mohanty of village Analadih in the district of Puri was allotted 9 Metric Tonnes of cement from Hira Cement Works (hereinafter called 'the factory') by the Government of Orissa in the Food and Civil Supply Department in their letter No. 2823 Dt. 29-1-1975 Accused Petitioner Bhimsen Sahu went to the factory with the allotment order (Ext. 1) and deposited Rs. 2373/- on 15-2-1975 as per Ext. 2 representing himself as Banshidhar Mohanty, the allottee. In the meantime on 12-2-1975, a sum of Rs. 2,400/- had been deposited in the Head Office of the factory at Bhubaneswar against the said allotment in favour of Banshidhar Mohanty and the Head Office sent information to the factory regarding the deposit along with the relevant documents i.e. released order (Ext. 3) and booking form (Ext. 4) for release of the said cement in favour of Banshidhar Mohanty or his authorised agent. On receiving Exts. 3 and 4 from the Head Office the officials of the factory suspected the identity of the accused and accordingly interrogated him and came to know that the accused was not Banshidhar Mohanty the allottee but one Bhimsen Sahu, (the Petitioner). Thereafter information was lodged at the police-station and the accused Petitioner was handed over to the police. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Sections 419 and 468, Indian Penal Code. The plea of the accused is that the allottee Banshidhar Mohanty had entrusted to him the documents, Exts. 3 and 4, to lift the cement on his behalf and accordingly he came to the factory for lifting the cement, But the officials of the factory demanded illegal gratification to which he did not agree. Therefore, they snatched away a sum of Rs. 2,373/- and handed him over to the police. 3. Prosecution examined four witnesses in import of the case and also produced some documents as stated earlier. The accused examined himself in support of the case. Therefore, they snatched away a sum of Rs. 2,373/- and handed him over to the police. 3. Prosecution examined four witnesses in import of the case and also produced some documents as stated earlier. The accused examined himself in support of the case. 4. In a case u/s 419, Indian Penal Code it is to be proved (1) that the accused cheated the complainant; and (2) that he did so by pretending to be some other person; or by knowingly substituting one person for another; or by representing that he, or some ether person is a person other' than the person he really is. Cheating has been defined u/s 415 of the Indian Penal Code. Before a man is convicted u/s 419, Indian Penal Code, the first requirement to be proved is that he has cheated. The ingredients of cheating are: 1. Deception of any person; 2(a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person, (i) to deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property. or (b) intentionally inducing that person 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. In this case it is to be seen whether the prosecution has proved that the accused has cheated by personation. It is the prosecution case that the accused produced the allotment order (Ext. 1) and also deposited the money with one A. Achutan, the Cashier, who granted the receipt, Ext. 2. A Achutan has not been examined. P.W. 2, who was the Officer Superintendent at the relevant time, has proved Ext. 1 and has deposed that the money has been deposited by the accused. But as A. Achutan has not been examined in this case, it cannot be definitely said that the accused has actually deposited the money in the office. P.W. 2 was also proved Ext. 2 and the release order and booking form (Exts. 3 and 4) which were sent by the Head Office. He has also proved Ext. 5, which is a letter alleged to be written by the accused and signed by him as Banshidhar Mohanty and produced before P.W. 2 with a request to allow him (accused) to lift the cement. 2 and the release order and booking form (Exts. 3 and 4) which were sent by the Head Office. He has also proved Ext. 5, which is a letter alleged to be written by the accused and signed by him as Banshidhar Mohanty and produced before P.W. 2 with a request to allow him (accused) to lift the cement. P.W. 2 does not say that the accused has signed in his presence as Banshidhar Mohanty. Admittedly Banshidhar Mohanty has not been examined. It is not known how the allotment order, Ext. 1 granted to Banshidhar Mohanty came to the possession of the accused. P.W. 1 is the Security Officer. He has admitted in cross-examination that he has no personal knowledge about the occurrence. P.W. 3 is a dealing Assistant of the factory. He only says that one man came to him and showed Ext. 1. As he found that Banshidhar Mohanty had already deposited the cash in the Head Office, he informed the same to P.W. 2. His evidence is of no help to the prosecution. P.W. 4 is a seizure witness. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the most important witness in this case A. Achutan, who received the money, has not been examined. He could have said whether the Petitioner deposited the money or not. The allottee, Banshidhar Mohanty who would have been the best person to deny the defence taken by the Petitioner that he was authorised by him to lift the cement has not been examined. It has also not been proved that the signature given in Ext. 5 is not that of Banshidhar Mohanty. The only evidence available is that of P.W. 2 who has stated that after receiving Exts. 3 and 4 he suspected that the accused is not Banshidhar Mohanty. He also found the signatures in Exts. 3 and 4 of Banshidhar Mohanty did not tally with the signature in Ext. 5. This is all the evidence on behalf of the prosecution. The plea of the accused is that he had been asked by Banshidhar Mahanty to lift the cement on his behalf and the allotment order, Ext. 1, was handed over to him by Banshidhar Mohanty. Admittedly the Petitioner has not obtained possession of the property, i.e., the cement. 5. 5. This is all the evidence on behalf of the prosecution. The plea of the accused is that he had been asked by Banshidhar Mahanty to lift the cement on his behalf and the allotment order, Ext. 1, was handed over to him by Banshidhar Mohanty. Admittedly the Petitioner has not obtained possession of the property, i.e., the cement. 5. In this case as already discussed Banshidhar Mohanty has not been examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution and A. Achutan who would have been the most important witness to say that the accused has deposited the money as per Ext. 2, has also not been examined. It is the settled law that once a person obtains possession of property by a trick, the offence of cheating is complete. 6. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments of both parties, I am of the view that the prosecution has signally failed to prove the case against the accused-Petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and the Petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt. 7. In the result, therefore, the revision in allowed and the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner are set aside. He may be released from his bail bond. Final Result : Allowed