JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal, on behalf of the complainant-appellant, with the leave of this Court to challenge the order of acquittal dated 29-10-1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 10th Court, Nagpur in Regular Criminal Case No.70 of 1990. 2. Accused persons were prosecuted by the complainant under Sections 403 and 417 of the I.P.C. on the ground that they have dishonestly deprived the complainant of his valuable property worth Rs.1.55 lacs by inducing and dishonestly requiring him to enter into an agreement of sale of land which could not have been sold without proper permission of the State. On 24th September, 1989 the complainant paid accused No.1 Rs.Five Thousand only as an earnest money. On 06-11-1989 he paid to the accused Rs.l.55 Lacs to complete the total consideration and on 09-11-1989 agreement to sale was executed. On 3012-1989 Accused No.1 issued notice to the complainant informing him that the accused does not wish to complete the transaction as he has been wrongly advised to enter into the agreement of sale. Inspite of the entities by the complainant the amount was not returned or sale was not executed and hence, the complainant filed civil suit in the Court of competent jurisdiction for specific performance of the agreement of sale. Not satisfied with the result of the suit and wanting his pound of flesh, he filed Criminal Case bearing No.70 of 1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 403 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code roping in the brothers of the accused No.1 with the aid of Section 34 of the Penal Code. The learned Magistrate recorded evidence of three witnesses, including complainant, for the prosecution and on appreciation of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the whole transaction was basically and essentially of civil nature no criminality of any kind was involved, he therefore, proceeded to acquit the accused of all the charges levelled against them. It is this order of acquittal, which is subject matter of this appeal. 3. Learned counsel Shri. Deshpande appearing on behalf of the appellant/accused submitted that even though the transaction is basically of a civil nature this transaction smacks criminal intent rights from the inception of the agreement between the parties on 24-09-1989 when Rs.5,000/- was accepted by the accused though he knew that he cannot sell the land without prior permission of the State. Yet subsequent agreements were executed payments were made, it is according to the learned counsel, amounts criminal conduct on the part of the accused and, he therefore, prayed that the order of acquittal being unsustainable-in-law is liable to be set aside. 4. Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code speaks of dishonest misappropriation of the property, which reads thus :"Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." In order to bring home this charge under Section 403 it is therefore, necessary for the complainant to prove that his property viz. Rs.1.55 lacs was dishonestly misappropriated or dishonestly converted to their own use by all the three accused persons. 5. Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code defines what dishonest means, it means, whatever action is taken it is with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to be with dishonesty to bring home the charge under Section 403 of I.P.C. therefore, it is necessary for the complainant, to prove that the accused with the intention of causing wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the complainant entered into the transaction of agreement of sale. It is then necessary for the complainant to prove, by cogent evidence that, this intention of causing wrongful loss or wrongful gain existed in the accused minimum that is expected of the complainant, in such circumstances, is unequivocal statement in his deposition that accused persons at the time when the transaction was entered into had intention of causing wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the complainant. 5-A. Such averment is completely lacking in the deposition of the complainant at Exh.48 page 80. Nowhere in the deposition before the Court the complainant has averred any such intention. It is pertinent to note from the deposition of this complainant that he wanted to purchase an agricultural land. He came to know from Shri. Shankar Kakde and Shri. Bang that the accused is going to sell his land, therefore, he contacted Dashrath, the accused. Nowhere in the deposition before the Court the complainant has averred any such intention. It is pertinent to note from the deposition of this complainant that he wanted to purchase an agricultural land. He came to know from Shri. Shankar Kakde and Shri. Bang that the accused is going to sell his land, therefore, he contacted Dashrath, the accused. He then deposes in a very clear term that, "It was agreed between us that if some permission is required for sale it is upto the Dashrath to take necessary permission for execution of the sale-deed". Therefore, the complainant also knew the existence of such permission or requirement of such permission and yet proceeded to enter into an agreement. He nowhere says that this representation to him that the land can be sold was with the criminal intent of causing loss to him. All that has been said by the complainant is that "If the accused Dashrath represented me that he could not sell the land being Kotwal Dunga. I would not have paid huge amount of Rs.1.55.000/- to him". He then proceeds to admit that considering the old age of Dashrath he believed him. He further believed Dashrath when Dashrath agreed to acquire permission from the Government, if so required. He ought to have believed Dashrath when Dashrath said that he do not want to sell the land. Nowhere in the deposition of the complainant there is murmur about accused Nos.2 and 3 having any part to play in the entire transaction. The fact that the transaction was between them i.e. complainant and Dashrath is admitted. In cross-examination, the complainant· admits that no direct transaction tool place with him and accused Nos.2 and 3 and yet he makes them accused. To say least about the attitude of the complainant is that his intention was certainly not proper in roping any person unconnected with the crime. 6. Evidence of two other witnesses is wholly inconsequential as basic ingredients of the evidence complained of are not established by the deposition of the complainant himself. 7. The complainant also forced to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code which provides punishment of cheating as defined in Section 415. 6. Evidence of two other witnesses is wholly inconsequential as basic ingredients of the evidence complained of are not established by the deposition of the complainant himself. 7. The complainant also forced to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code which provides punishment of cheating as defined in Section 415. It requires that: "Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentional induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do of 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, is said to "cheat"." The complaint, therefore, is that accused Dashrath fraudulently or dishonestly induces the complainant to part with Rs.1.55 Lacs and therefore, he is liable to be punished under Section 417. Sections need not be quoted. The basic minimum requirement for conviction under Section 417 would be that the complainant states on oath that he was induced to part with Rs.1.55 lacs with fraudulent and dishonest intention by Dashrath and the other accused. In absence of such basic averment in the deposition of the complainant, it is impermissible in law to record any conviction. 8. The learned trial Judge was therefore, perfectly right and legal in appreciating the evidence as recorded and his finding on facts and law are correct, hence, require no interference. In the result, therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed.