K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) WITH the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, these appeals were heard analogously and this judgment will govern both. ( 2 ) THE respondent who was the accused in the court below was the Executive Officer of Nrusinghnath Dev Jew, Endowment of Kendupali. He had intimacy with the appellant who was the complainant in the criminal cases. The respondent represented to the petitioner that there was shortage of fund for performance of the Seva Puja of the deity and that he had authority from the Trust Board of the Endowment to incur loans and repay the same by supplying paddy after harvest by allowing concession at the rate of Rs. 10/- per bag. On such condition, the appellant agreed to advance loans to the respondent and did so as here under trilochan Khuntia Vs. Batakrushna Mohanty IMPORTANT POINT Violation of a contract is not cheating. 13. 10. 1977-Rs. 100. 00 18. 10. 1977-Rs. 300. 006 2. 11. 1977-Rs. 500. 00 11. 12. 1977-Rs. 100. 00 15. 12. 1977-Rs. 100. 00 2. 1. 1978-Rs. 700. 00 Sometime after the last transaction, the respondent was suspended from service by the Commissioner of Endowments and was transferred to some other place. As a result, the respondent neither repaid the loans nor supplied paddy as had been agreed upon. The successor Trust Board did not take any responsibility for the loans on the ground that - the same had not been accounted for in the books of accounts and that the respondent had not made over charge of all the accounts to the Managing Trustee. On account of the above, the appellant felt that he had been created outright by the respondent and so be filed two complaints in the learned courts below. ( 3 ) THE plea of the respondent who also examined himself as P. W. I was that on being authorised by the Trust Board of he Endowment, he had incurred the loans and had passed documents to the appellant evidencing each transaction. He had also accounted for the loans which had actually been spent for the Seva Puja of the deity. He did not incur the loans on his personal account. Accordingly, he pleaded not guilty to the charge under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code framed against him. ( 4 ) MR. He had also accounted for the loans which had actually been spent for the Seva Puja of the deity. He did not incur the loans on his personal account. Accordingly, he pleaded not guilty to the charge under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code framed against him. ( 4 ) MR. Rahenoma appearing for the appellant in both the cases, urged that had the respondent represented to the appellant that the loans should be repaid by supply of paddy with commission at the rate of Rs. 10/- per bag, the latter would not have agreed to advance loans. Because of such representation, the appellant advanced the loans amounting to Rs. 1,800. 00 in total and so he was cheated by the respondent. Mr. R. C. Mohanty, appearing for the respondent in both the cases, on the other hand urged that it was a case of advancement of loans by the appellant to the deity through its Executive Officer, the respondent for which documents were executed If the loans were not repaid, civil liability was created. The appellant could (Tring civil suits for recovery of loans. But by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the respondent had cheated the (appellant. ( 5 ) THE fact s brought on record through evidence were mostly undisputed. On the basis thereof the learned court below held as follows: On a careful perusal of the three receipts (Exts. 1, 2 and 3) I find that if the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant he should not have mentioned in the receipt the conditions of repayment, the purpose for which the amount is being received from P. W. 1 and he should not also affix the seal of the Executive Officer He further held: When the accused has mentioned everything regarding the terms of repayment in the money receipts (Exts. 1, 2 and 3) and also the amount has been mentioned in the cash book (Exts. D, D/1 and D/2) I find that the accused has got no intention to cheat the complainant and if his intention was like that he must not have granted the receipts to the complainant. 1, 2 and 3) and also the amount has been mentioned in the cash book (Exts. D, D/1 and D/2) I find that the accused has got no intention to cheat the complainant and if his intention was like that he must not have granted the receipts to the complainant. So in the circumstances of the case I find that the accused has not cheated the complainant in any manner but it is only a violation of contract for which the complainant has remedy to file money suit for realisation of the amount advanced by him to the accused on the strength of the receipts (Exts. 1,2 and 3 ). The aforesaid findings recorded by the learned court below were well founded on the basis of the undisputed facts of the case and the admission made by the respondent. It appears that the loans were incurred because the endowment was in strained circumstances. But taking advantage of the removal of the respondent from the place, the loans were not repaid. It is a case in which a civil liability was created. It was not a case of cheating under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, the ingredients of which have not at all been satisfied. The petitioner seems to have been ill advised to come to the criminal court with complainants instead of filing suits in the Civil Court for recovery of the loans either from the Endowment or from the Endowment. In my view, this is not at all a fit case where the orders of acquittal of the respondent should be interfered with in exercise of powers conferred under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision reported in Smt. Dhara Dei v. Prafula Swain and others1. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeals being without merit are hereby dismissed. Appeals dismissed. .