JUDGMENT S.I. Jafri, J. - This appeal has been preferred by R. Wheeler applicant thereby impugning the judgment and order passed by Sri V. S. Bajpai, Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital by which the lower appellate court reversed the finding of the trial court and set aside the judgment and order dated 11.6.1982 passed by Munsif Magistrate, Nainital. 2. The facts of the case are that applicant R. Wheeler had purchased a leyland Bus No. USR 7096 financed by Investment Finance Company, Delhi. The respondent, namely, Pramod Chand Singh was employed as Driver on the aforesaid bus. Applicant R. Wheeler was sustaining constant loss and wanted to dispose of the said bus. When the respondent came to know of the intention of the applicant, he proposed to purchase the bus and offered Rs. 40,000/- in cash to the applicant and the balance amount out-standing to the Finance Company which had financed the bus was agreed upon to be repaid in instalments by the respondent. The respondent purchased the said bus under a purchase and hire system through the State Bank of India, Haldwani, Nainital and obtained a loan of Rs. 60,000/- from the aforesaid bank by hypothecating the said bus to the aforesaid bank. Out of the money so received as loan from the aforesaid State Bank of India, the respondent paid a sum of Rs 51,000/- to the Inspector of Investment Finance company Delhi. On the loan which the respondent had obtained from the State Bank of India Haldwani applicant, stood one of the two guarantors and in September 1975, the applicant received a notice from the aforesaid bank that the respondent had not paid the instalment due to the Bank. On enquiries, the applicant came to know that the bus in question was being plied in Delhi as against the Permit in which the bus could only be plied in the area of Nainital. He further came to know that the aforesaid bus had been sold by the respondent to one M/s I. S. Goel of Delhi after forging permit and the registration book and even without obtaining the clearance certificate from the R. T. O. Nainital. A report of this occurrence was made to the superintendent of Police, Crime Branch Delhi on 20.1.1976 by registered post. A written report was also sent by the applicant to the D. I. G. Police Hill Range on 25. 8. A report of this occurrence was made to the superintendent of Police, Crime Branch Delhi on 20.1.1976 by registered post. A written report was also sent by the applicant to the D. I. G. Police Hill Range on 25. 8. 1976 on the basis of which a case was registered on 26. 9. 1976 under Section 420, I.P.C. Thereafter, investigation followed and after conclusion of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent under Section 420 and 471, I.P.C. 3. The case of the respondent is that of denial. The facts delineated in defence are that he had not purchased the bus in question and there was only an agreement to purchase the bus from the applicant, that he had applied for loan of Rs. 60,000/- from, the State Bank of India Haldwani but the aforesaid bus had not been hypothecated to the State Bank Haldwani nor the bus had been sold by him to M/s Goel of Delhi nor had any document been forged by him. 4. I have traversed upon the facts and circumstances involved in the case with care and concern. I have also taken into account the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for the State. I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. On the first count under Section 420 I. P. C., the respondent had been charged for cheating M/s Goel of Delhi by inducing hin).to part with Rs. 55000/- as consideration of the sale price of the bus in question that he was not competent to sell due to hypothecation. The lower appellate court has rightly concluded that the charge framed under Section 420 I. P. C. is not made out inasmuch as that there is no evidence on the record to bear out that the respondent had induced the aforesaid M/s Goel to part with the amount vis-a-vis the fact that Sri Goel was himself no more to evidence the fact that the respondent had made use' of inducements to part with the amount. No other evidence i4 there on the record to prove inducements on the part of the respondent. No other evidence i4 there on the record to prove inducements on the part of the respondent. In this view of the matter, it has rightly been observed by the court below that to constitute the offence of cheating, the complainant must prove that the offender had the mens rea to defraud which is obviously lacking in this case. With regard to the charge, that the respondent was not competent to sell the bus owing to the bus being hypothecated to the State Bank of India Haldwani, the finding of the lower appellate court are to the effect that there is no evidence to show that the respondent had not disclosed the fact that the bus was hypothecated to the Bank before the deal was concluded. The court below also observes in its finding that hypothecation of the bus with the State Bank of India can at best be said to be a charge upon the property inasmuch as an agreement of hypothecation cannot divest the real owner of the vehicle with his ownership rights. It has also been observed that agreement of hypothecation only creates a civil liability upon the respondent and if there was a breach of this agreement, the remedy open to the Bank was a civil remedy by filing a suit for recovery of the loan amount from the debtor and the guarantors of the loan which the Bank is already pursuing. With regard to the ownership of the vehicle the court below observed that the sale of the aforesaid bus by the applicant to the respondents was complete as soon as the price thereof had been paid to him. I have carefully scanned the aforesaid finding of the court below and I am in full agreement with the finding that the respondent could not be prosecuted or convicted for the offence under Section 420, I. P. C. 6. In as far as offence under Section 471 I. P. C. is concerned, the prosecution case is that the respondent had fraudulently used as genuine the registration certificate and_ the temporary permit with the knowledge that these documents were forged documents. on the above count the findings of the court below are that from the evidence it is borne out that the blank registration books used to be lying on a table in the office of the R. T. 0. on the above count the findings of the court below are that from the evidence it is borne out that the blank registration books used to be lying on a table in the office of the R. T. 0. uncared for and any one could have picked up a couple of them and if such registration booklet, with a genuine office seal but with forged entries was handed over to the respondent, he cannot be said to have the knowledge that the document is forged one. To prove the offence that the respondent had the knowledge that both the documents were forged, and used them fraudulently as genuine one, there must be some evidence on record which upon a careful examination of the record, I find is conspicuously lacking in this case and hence, the knowledge that the respondent used those forged documents as genuine vis-a-vis the knowledge that those documents are forged, cannot be safely attributed to him as to bring home the guilt under Section 471, I. P. C. 7. Upon a conspectus, I feel that the findings arrived at by the lower appellate court are quite cogent and convincing and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly interfered and upset the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the trial court. 8. In the result, the revision is dismissed. The notice issued by this Court on 8. 5. 84 is discharged.