M. S. A. Siddiqui ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of Shri P. L. Singla, 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi convicting the appellants under Section 420, IPC. They have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of rupees fifteen thousand, in default rigorous imprisonment for six months. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that the appellants are the sons of the accused Jagan Nath Sharma (since dead ). The appellants were partners of M/s. J. N. Sharma and Sons. The said partnership firm used to manufacture engineering goods including galvanised telephone poles, etc. In 1964, the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, Government of India invited tenders for supply of 70,000 galvanised steel tubes rivetted (seam) tapered D-8 . The tender submitted by the said firm was accepted and the supply order A. T. No. SHM. 4/7289-N and 7391-N/ 1/64/jn/1614 dated 2. 3. 1964 was placed on the firm for supply of stores valued at Rs. 39,27,000. 00 @ Rs. 56. 10 per galvanised steel tube rivetted (seam) tapered D-8 . As per terms of the contract the accused firm was entitled to receive 95% payment on proof of despatch and balance 5% on receipt of stores by the consignee in good condition and accepted by him. On 14. 2. 1968, Shri R. C. Ghai, Deputy Director General (Administration), Ministry of Works and Housing, Government of India addressed a complaint to Shri P. V. Hingorani, DIG/cbi/spe/ (G. W. II), New Delhi alleging therein that the accused firm had supplied less quantity of stores to the consignees but had obtained 95% payment in respect of quantity in excess of the one actually supplied by quoting fictitious railway receipts in the bills and thereby cheated the Government to the tune of Rs. 6,76,803. 00. Investigation pursuant thereto culminated in submission of a charge-sheet under Sections 120-B/420, IPC against the accused persons. ( 3 ) THE appellants abjured their guilt and alleged that their father (deceased J. N. Sharma) was directly in charge of the affairs of the accused firm. They had not adduced any evidence in support of their defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on an assessment of the evidence adduced by the prosecution found the appellants guilty under Section 420, Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. They had not adduced any evidence in support of their defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on an assessment of the evidence adduced by the prosecution found the appellants guilty under Section 420, Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them as indicated above. ( 4 ) IT is relevant to mention that the accused J. N. Sharma died during the trial. The question is: whether the appellants are guilty under Section 420, IPC. For a person to be convicted under Section 420, Indian Penal Code it has to be established not only that he has cheated someone but also that by doing so he has dishonestly induced the person who was cheated to deliver any property, etc. A person can be said to have done a thing dishonestly if he does so with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person. Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which a person is entitled while wrongful gain to a person means a gain to him by unlawful means of property to which the person gaming is not legally entitled. There are two facets of the definition of dishonesty and it is enough to establish the existence of one of them. The law does not require that both should be established. (Tulsi Ram v. State of U. P. , AIR 1963 SC 666 ). ( 5 ) IT is a common ground that the firm M/s. J. N. Sharma and Sons was a partnership firm of which the appellants were also partners. The said firm used to manufacture engineering goods including galvanised steel tubes, etc. Pursuant to the notice inviting tenders issued by the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, Government of India for supply of steel tubes, rivetted (seam) tapered D-8 the accused firm submitted its tender, which was accepted. Consequently, the supply order A. T. No. SHM-4/7289-N and 7391-N/1/64/jn/1614 dated 2. 3. 1964 was placed on the said firm for supply of 70,000 galvanised steel tubes rivetted (seam) tapered D-8 for Rs. 39,27,000. 00 @ Rs. 56. 10 per galvanised steel tube. Consequently, the supply order A. T. No. SHM-4/7289-N and 7391-N/1/64/jn/1614 dated 2. 3. 1964 was placed on the said firm for supply of 70,000 galvanised steel tubes rivetted (seam) tapered D-8 for Rs. 39,27,000. 00 @ Rs. 56. 10 per galvanised steel tube. As per term of the contract 95% of the cost of the stores was to be paid to the accused firm on proof of despatch and balance 5% thereof was to be paid on receipt of stores by the consignee in good condition and accepted by him. The appellant Kashyap Sharma, in his examination under Section 313, Cr. P. C" has admitted his signatures on the bills Ex. 37/b-1 for Rs. 38,092. 00, Ex. Public Witness 37/b-2 for Rs. 38,092. 00, Ex. Public Witness 37/ B-11 for Rs. 38,053. 00, Ex. Public Witness 37/b-13 for Rs. 40,064. 00, Ex. Public Witness 37/b-14 for Rs. 40,499. 00, Ex. Public Witness 37/b-15 for Rs. 13,590. 00 and Ex. Public Witness 37/b-16 for Rs. 44,304. 00. Similarly, the appellant Kuldip Sharma has also admitted his signature on the bills Ex. Public Witness 37/b-3 for Rs. 38,092. 00, Ex. Public Witness 37/b-5 for Rs. 38,053. 00, Ex. Public Witness 37/b-6 for Rs. l6,308. 00 ,ex. PW37/b-7 for Rs. 41,260. 00,ex. PW37/b-9forrs. l7,504. 00 ,ex. PW 37/b-12 for Rs. 34,465. 00 and Ex. Public Witness 37/b-20. It is also undisputed that 95% cost of the stores was paid to the aforesaid firm on the basis of these bills. ( 6 ) IN the bill Ex. Public Witness 37/b-1, R. R. No. 044185, dated 18. 11. 1965 has been mentioned as a proof for despatch of the contracted goods. It has come in the evidence of Jagdish Kumar (Public Witness 4) that the date of R. R. No. 044185 is 16. 11. 1965 and under the said RR consignment was sent by M/s. Autobhan Industries to Yeotmal His evidence finds sufficient confirmation from the original R. R. No. 044185 dated 16. 11. 1965 (Ex. PW29-A-5 ). Gobind Narain Lakhe (Public Witness 18) testified that no store was received under R. R. No. 044185 dated 18. 11. 1965. The bill Ex. Public Witness 37/b-2 mentions the R. R. No. 399478. Public Witness I. R. Anand, Railway Goods Clerk, Faridabad (Public Witness 29) testified that the goods were booked under the R. R. 399478, dated 24. 12. 1965 (Ex. 11. 1965. The bill Ex. Public Witness 37/b-2 mentions the R. R. No. 399478. Public Witness I. R. Anand, Railway Goods Clerk, Faridabad (Public Witness 29) testified that the goods were booked under the R. R. 399478, dated 24. 12. 1965 (Ex. PW 29/f-5) from Faridabad to M/s. Shanker Stores, Wardha and the said goods were booked by M/s. Hindustan Vacuum Glass, Faridabad. On this point, his testimony finds sufficient confirmation from the evidence of Nawal Kishore (Public Witness 38), who had worked as Accounts Officer in M/s. Hindustan Vacuum Glass, Faridabad from 1963 to 1975. Public Witness Gobind Narain Lakhe (Public Witness 18), who was posted as Assistant Engineer, Incharge Telegraph Circle Store Depot at Secunderabad deposed that no store was received under the R. R. No. 399478, dated 24. 12. 1965 from the said firm. ( 7 ) THE bill Ex. Public Witness 37/b-11 mentions RR Nos. 044343 and 044344 dated 28. 3. 1967. Public Witness I. R. Anand (Public Witness 29) deposed that on 28. 3. 1967, no booking was done on behalf of M/s. J. N. Sharma and Sons. On this point, his testimony finds sufficient confirmation from the evidence of Sardari Lal Sharma (Public Witness 43), who was the Storekeeper of the accused firm. As per bill Ex. Public Witness 37/b-11, the stores were consigned to the Controller of Telegraph Stores, Bombay under the aforesaid railway receipts. PW V. J. Konde (Public Witness 8) testified that no store was received at Bombay under the aforesaid railway receipts. ( 8 ) THE bill Ex. Public Witness 37/b-13 mentions railway receipts Nos. 066374 and 066375, dated 7. 7. 1967. Public Witness I. R. Anand (Public Witness 29) deposed that the original railway receipts (Ex. Public Witness 29/b-5 and Ex. Public Witness 29/c-5) were blank as no booking had been done thereunder. Sardari Lal Sharma (Public Witness 43) testified that on 7. 7. 1967, no material was booked or despatched on behalf of the accused firm. ( 9 ) THE bill Ex. Public Witness 37/b-14 mentions the railway receipts No. 066378 and 066379 dated 8. 7. 1967. Public Witness I. R. Anand (Public Witness 29) deposed that the railway receipts bearing the aforesaid numbers (Ex. Public Witness 29/d-5 and Ex. Public Witness 29/d-8) were blank as no booking had been done thereunder. Public Witness Sardari Lal Sharma (Public Witness 43) stated in his evidence that on 8. 7. 7. 1967. Public Witness I. R. Anand (Public Witness 29) deposed that the railway receipts bearing the aforesaid numbers (Ex. Public Witness 29/d-5 and Ex. Public Witness 29/d-8) were blank as no booking had been done thereunder. Public Witness Sardari Lal Sharma (Public Witness 43) stated in his evidence that on 8. 7. 1967, no booking was done on behalf of the accused firm. ( 10 ) THE bill Ex. Public Witness 37/b-15 mentions the RR No. 554866 dated 8. 7. 1967. PW I. R. Anand (Public Witness 29) materially corroborated by the Store-keeper Sardari Lal Sharma (PW 43) testified that on 8. 7. 1967, no booking was done under the said R. R. on behalf of the accused firm. The said bill pertains to Bombay and Public Witness V. J. Konde (Public Witness 8) deposed that no store was received at the Bombay Office under the aforesaid R. R. The bill (Ex. Public Witness 37/b-16) mentions railway receipt Nos. 044357 and 044358 dated 8. 7. 1967. Public Witness I. R. Anand (Public Witness 29) materially corroborated by the Store-keeper Sardari Lal Sharma (Public Witness 43) testified that on 8. 7. 1967, no booking was done on behalf of the accused firm. ( 11 ) THE bill (Ex. Public Witness 37/b-3) mentions the R. R. Nos. 544548 and 544549, dated 11. 4. 1966, the bill (Ex. Public Witness 37/ B-5) mentions the R. R. Nos. 3421/6 and 3421/7, dated 28. 6. 1966, bill (Ex. Public Witness 37/b-6) mentions the R. R. No. 2802, dated 9. 3. 1967, bill (Ex. PW 37/b-7) mentions the R. R. Nos. 2803 and 2804 dated 9. 3. 1967, bill (Ex. Public Witness 37/ B-9) mentions the R. R. No. 2805 dated 10. 3. 1967 and the bill (Ex. Public Witness 37/b-12) mentions the R. R. Nos. 066358 and 066359 dated 28. 6. 1967. It has come in the evidence of I. R. Anand (Public Witness 29) and the Store-keeper Sardari Lal Sharma (Public Witness 43) no goods were despatched on behalf of the accused firm under the railway receipts mentioned above. It is significant to note that the R. R. No. 066358 (Ex. Public Witness 29/w- 4),which finds mention in the bill (Ex. PW37/b-12),was actually issued on 20. 9. 1967 on behalf of M/s. Hitkari Brothers, Faridabad and the R. R. No. 066359 (Ex. Public Witness 29/ X-4) was issued on 20. 9. It is significant to note that the R. R. No. 066358 (Ex. Public Witness 29/w- 4),which finds mention in the bill (Ex. PW37/b-12),was actually issued on 20. 9. 1967 on behalf of M/s. Hitkari Brothers, Faridabad and the R. R. No. 066359 (Ex. Public Witness 29/ X-4) was issued on 20. 9. 1967 on behalf of M/s. Hindustan Bovery, Faridabad. These facts have come in the evidence of I. R. Anand (Public Witness 29) and D. S. Ahuja (Public Witness 6 ). ( 12 ) NOTHING has been elicited in the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses to shake their credit. Their evidence has been believed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and I am not inclined to differ with him on the said point. Thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution proves beyond any shadow of doubts that the appellants had obtained payments from the Government of India by sending the aforesaid bills containing numbers of bogus railway receipts representing that the contracted goods had been booked and despatched under the bogus railway receipts mentioned in the bills. The false representation made by the appellants in the aforesaid bills regarding despatch of the contracted goods induced the Government to part with the money to satisfy those claims put forward by the appellants in the form of bills. ( 13 ) IN the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code was well founded. ( 14 ) COMING to the question of sentence, learned Counsel for the appellants stating that the offence with which the appellants were charged was committed more than thirty years ago and the appellants have undergone the proceedings for a period of three decades, fervently pleaded for mercy. This Court has sometimes taken into account the long period for which the sentence unposed may have remained dangling over the head of a convictlike the Sword of Damocles. Moreover, a period of more than three decades is a long time in the course of which the condition of life and the outlook of a man may have changed entirely. This case has taken so long to decide finally due to no fault of the appellants. Moreover, a period of more than three decades is a long time in the course of which the condition of life and the outlook of a man may have changed entirely. This case has taken so long to decide finally due to no fault of the appellants. Consequently, I reduce the sentence of imprisonment upon the appellants under Section 420, IPC to the period already undergone by them, but I maintain the fine of Rs. 15,000. 00 imposed upon the appellants and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months. Subject to this modification, the appeal is hereby dismissed.