JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The Petitioner has preferred this revision against his conviction under Sections 419, 329 and 420, I.P.C. and the Sentence of R. I. for one year on each count under Sections 419 and 420, I.P.C. and R I. for two months u/s 323, I.P.C. 2. The indictment for which the Petitioner stands charged is that though he is not a qualified Kaviraj yet posing himself to be so, he undertook the treatment of p.w. 1 to cure him of eczema in 1 is band and in course of the treatment packed an injection m his right buttock receiving Rs. 15.50 from him towards his charges. After the injunction was pricked. p.w. 1 could hardly walk and on account of it suffered from fever and was bed ridden for two and half a months with the spot of the prick getting swollen and became septic with formation of pus for which he had to undergo an operation in the Government hospital at Patnagarh. In defence the Petitioner denied the occurrence though he claimed himself to be a Kaviraj hailing from a Kaviraj family of three generations "and having also obtained a certificate, M. O. IV. from an institute of his being a Kaviraj after passing an examination and of being versed in that science, but himself not practising it. 3. Mr. P. K. Misra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner placed the evidence of P.Ws. I, 2 and 4, i.e. the injured, his father and his mother respectively as also the evidence of p.w. 14, .the Registrar of Orissa State Council of Ayurvedic Medicines, to contend firstly that the allegations against the Petitioner of his having treated p.w. 1 by diving him an injection have not at all peen established and secondly even if the allegations are true, yet they do not make out any case under the sections for which the Petitioner stood charged. 4. Section 419, I.P.C. deals with punishment for cheating by personation; whereas Section. 420. I.P.C., so far as relevant for the present case, deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing to part with opp party. Cheating by personation, "as defined in Section 416, I. P. G, is that the person concerned cheat by pretending to be some other person or representing that he is a person other than himself or what he really is. 420. I.P.C., so far as relevant for the present case, deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing to part with opp party. Cheating by personation, "as defined in Section 416, I. P. G, is that the person concerned cheat by pretending to be some other person or representing that he is a person other than himself or what he really is. So far as the allegations against the Petitioner go it is not the prosecution case at all that he ever represented himself to be somebody else or that he is not a Kaviraj. It is its very admitted case that the Petitioner held out himself to be a Kaviraj and that he had the certificate M;. O. IV issued to him by the Kaviraj Training Institute, Cuttack. It was the 'Petitioner's case that he belongs to a family of Kaviraj of three generations standing and had studied and passed as a Kaviraj. His claim was refuted by the prosecution by evidence that the institute which granted the certificate to the Petitioner" was not a recogonised one as deposed to by p.w. 14, under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (Act 48 of 1970) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It is thus their case that the Petitioner being not possessed of recognised qua lineation and being not enrolled either on the State Register or the Central Register of Indian Medicine, was not entitled to practise in Indian medicine. Even though such disqualification of the Petitioner to practise as a Kaviraj may be real under the provisions of the Act, yet that by itself does not establish that the Petitioner was personating himself as somebody else and Dot as a Kaviraj. So far as Section 419. I.P.C. goes, the relevant tact IS that the Petitioner was genuinely believing himself as kaviraj having been equipped with a certificate, though under a law passed in 1970 he was not entitled to practise as such. His indulging in practice in spite of the disentitlement might be an offence u/s 17 (4) of the Act making him 'liable for imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, but that is a distinct offence by itself over which I express no opinion. But on the facts alleged an officer u/s 419 can badly be substantiated. But on the facts alleged an officer u/s 419 can badly be substantiated. Similarly, so far as Section 420, I.P.C. is Concerned, it must be said that the ingredients of the section have not been fulfilled. If the Petitioner genuinely believed himself to be a Kaviraj and embarked upon treating p.w.l, there can hardly be any element of creating there. To establish an offence of cheating, in the context it is necessary to he shown that from the beginning when the endeavour of treating was undertaken by the Petitioner, he never really intended to treat p.w. 1 as a Kaviraj but in reality wanted to defraud him by inducing him to part with money by making him believe that be was indeed treated by a Kaviraj and the while knowing himself to be not a Kaviraj at all.. Such is not the case with which the prosecution has come forward and hence a charge u/s 420 I.P. C. is not sustainable. Similarly the prosecution u/s 323, I.P.C. as presented by the prosecution is grossly misconceived. For the offence of voluntarily causing hurt it is essential tbat there must be an intention to cause hurt to any person or one must be doing the act with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to .cause hurt to any person and does thereby cause hurt. If the Petitioner believed himself to be a Kaviraj and injected the injection, it can certainly not be said that he intended to cause hurt to. p.w. 1 and that he was committing an offence within the ambit of Section 321, I.P.C. 5. Mr. Misra is also correct in his submission that even on the evidence the concurrence could never be said to have been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. P. w. 1 who is the victim said that in July. 1979 while he was taking bath in a tank his eczema was noticed by the Petitioner who advised him the treatment which the p.w. 1 believed, and on 28-7-1979 at 4.00 p. m. the Petitioner injected him in his tight buttock receiving Rs. 15.50 from him towards his charges. Since the injection adversely affected him the Petitioner did not further appear or come to his house and tried to conceal his presence. This statement has to be taken with a grain of salt because the occurrence actually took place on 22-6-1979. 15.50 from him towards his charges. Since the injection adversely affected him the Petitioner did not further appear or come to his house and tried to conceal his presence. This statement has to be taken with a grain of salt because the occurrence actually took place on 22-6-1979. P. w. 1 in his deposition not only stated the occurrence to be in July. 1979, but also further specified it again to be on 22-7-1979. His father p.w. 2 lodged the F.I. R. (Ext. 1) stating therein that an amount of Rs. 15.50 was paid by him to the Petitioner after the injection was pricked. In his evidence in Court however he adopted a completely different story of his having been absent from home having gone to his daughter's house where be received a letter of p.w. 1 being ill and coming back home learnt of the conduct of the Petitioner and that after his return the Petitioner had again come to his house to render treatment to his son. It is then that he had asked the Petitioner about all that had happened and the Petitioner had agreed to come with better medicine on the following day, but never came subsequently and concealed his presence. . In cross-examination he further stated that he never paid any amount to the Petitioner but that it was only his son who paid the amount and that the statement in the F. I. R. was wrong. The statement of p.w. 4, the mother of p.w. 1 was again different from both P.Ws. 1. and 2. She stated that while she was sitting for her lunch the Petitioner came and told that he would treat p.w. 1 and tbat if within eight days p.w. 1 would not be cured be would bear all the expenses for the treatment which would be incurred in future and so saying he asked for some money to get the medicine and in good faith she gave him Rs. 7/-. The Petitioner got the medicine and pricked the injection in the fight thigh of p.w. 1 deteriorated. The Petitioner came to her house one or two days later and took further sum of Rs. 5/-, Rs. 3/- on one occasion and Rs. 2/- on another occasion. Afterwards when the spot where the injection had been pricked became septic, he did not come anymore. The Petitioner came to her house one or two days later and took further sum of Rs. 5/-, Rs. 3/- on one occasion and Rs. 2/- on another occasion. Afterwards when the spot where the injection had been pricked became septic, he did not come anymore. Such statement of ber cannot be relied upon since not only this is a completely different story but is also contrary to the statement of her son p.w. 1. that she was absent from home and came after the Petitioner had pricked the injection on the right buttock of p.w. 1. In view of such inconsistent statements of the three witnesses it is difficult to believe that the prosecution has disclosed a true version of the actual occurrence and the story as advanced by it becomes highly doubtful. Since the case of the prosecution has not been established against the Petitioner" the conviction and sentences passed against him must be set aside. 6. In the result, the revision is allowed. Final Result : Allowed