ORDER D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The present Cr. Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and order of sentence for seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine stipulation of Rs. 5,000/- to each of the appellants. The fine amount after realization was directed to be paid to the mother of the deceased by way of compensation and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC II, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 179 of 2000. 2. The brief facts of the case of the informant Kuldeep Singh presented as written report before Danbad (Dhansar) police was that on 5.9.1998 his brother Diljeet Singh committed suicide by drowning in Chhat Talab out of frustration and deception caused by the appellants. It was further stated that the appellants had obtained a sum of Rs. 70,000/- from Diljeet Singh and also obtained signature of the mother of the deceased Channi Devi (PW 4) on separate blank papers on assurance that the appellants would get certain land settled within 20 days in her name. After lapse of 20 days when Diljeet Singh approached the appellants and demanded the settlement papers as per their assurance, he was asked to wait for another 10-15 days and even thereafter on his repeated demand when the appellants ultimately refused either to deliver settlement papers of the land or to return the money, such refusal put Diljeet Singh under frustration on the act of deception of the appellants which culminated into his suicide by drowning. The informant further narrated that prior to such incidence a panclw.yati was convened on the instance of Municipal Ward Commissioner and the appellants sought for latitude of two months to refund the money to which they did never refund and in disgust Diljeet Singh committed suicide on 5.9.1998. 3. The police lodged FIR on the written report vide Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 651/98 for the offence under Section 306/149/420/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge-sheet. Accordingly charge was framed against all the three appellants under Sections 306/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Judge to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Mr. Accordingly charge was framed against all the three appellants under Sections 306/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Judge to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad the learned Counsel submitted that after full trial the appellants were convicted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code simplicitor and the prosecution failed to prove charge against the appellants under Section 306 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code that Diljeet Singh committed suicide on the abetment of the appellants in prosecution of criminal conspiracy. 5. Advancing his argument Mr. Prasad submitted that the deceased Diljeet Singh and his mother themselves were to be blamed for that they had entered into an illegal agreement with the appellants for obtaining settlement of a Government land, in spite of acquainted with the fact that the appellants were not authorities under law either for settlement of land or extending assistance in such settlement, though the allegation was denied since the outset, which was absolutely false, brought about with malice. No offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against any of the appellants on the given circumstances the learned Counsel submitted and the prosecution failed to bring home or to produce any chit of paper in support of the allegation of transaction of money which was alleged to be accepted by the appellants with the deceptive intention or that the blank papers alleged to be signed by Channi Devi and alleged to be delivered to the appellant was converted into valuable securities by them for illegal gains. There is neither evidence in support of inducement or promise by the appellants on the record extended to Diljeet Singh or his mother nor any documentary evidence in support of charge that the appellants had received money in cash. Mr. Prasad submitted that the Court should take judicial notice that the transaction of huge amount to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- cannot be effected without any written instrument and it was quite unbelievable that signature of the mother of the informant were obtained on ten blank papers to be used in the settlement of Government land against established procedure for that. 6. Mr. 70,000/- cannot be effected without any written instrument and it was quite unbelievable that signature of the mother of the informant were obtained on ten blank papers to be used in the settlement of Government land against established procedure for that. 6. Mr. Prasad exhorted that the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution were partisan and interested witnesses and that without meticulously examining the veracity of their testimonies, the trial Court abruptly jumped to the conclusion that charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was proved against the appellants without there being any overt act on their part or attribution to the alleged charge. Mr. Prasad emphasized that the informant developed the case that money to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- in total were paid in three instalments after withdrawal from the bank but no bank account showing such withdrawal was produced on record to buttress the allegation. 7. Mr. Prasad pointed out the statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 of Cr PC during their trial and submitted that their defence has been seriously prejudiced due to cryptic and perfunctory examination since they were not confronted with the materials if at all appearing against them, incriminating in nature. Finally Mr. Prasad submitted that in spite of denial of allegation of obtaining Rs. 70,000/- from the mother of the informant through Diljeet Singh, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 8844 of 1998(R) the appellant Jadhunandan Rai deposited Rs. 35,000/- which was withdrawn by Chhani Devi (PW 4) on 1.9.2000. Similarly, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 1.2.1999 in Cr. Misc. No. 10591 of 1998 the appellant Ganesh Rai deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- which was drawn by Chhani Devi (mother of the deceased) on 1.9.2000 and so in this manner total sum of Rs. 60,000/- was already paid which was accepted by the mother of the deceased without protest but unfortunately this fact did not find place in the judgment which was a mitigating circumstance to take a considered view in recording the judgment of conviction of the appellants. Mr Counsel further submitted that the sentence of imprisonment for seven years and fine Rs. 5,000/-awarded against each of the appellants was apparently harsh and disproportionate to the nature of offence conspicuously in view of the fact that a sum of Rs. Mr Counsel further submitted that the sentence of imprisonment for seven years and fine Rs. 5,000/-awarded against each of the appellants was apparently harsh and disproportionate to the nature of offence conspicuously in view of the fact that a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was already delivered which was accepted by the mother of the informant, but the trial Court failed to take into account of this fact. 8. Concluding his argument, Mr. Prasad submitted that the mother of the deceased, Chhani Devi (PW 4) as well as the informant admitted under cross- examination before the trial Court that they were acquainted with the facts that the land in question proposed to be settled was a Government land and that the appellants were neither Government amins nor karamchari nor the Circle Officers, i.e. a competent authority for the same. Similarly, she admitted that neither she nor her son had ever applied before the Deputy Commissioner for the settlement of land in their favour and that no document was prepared in respect of transaction of money. For the aforesaid reasons Mr. Prasad submitted that the conviction of the appellants under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence passed thereon against them are unsustainable which is liable to be set aside by acquitting the appellants. 9. The learned APP opposed the contention and submitted that the appellants cheated informants mother by persuading her to part with Rs. 70,000/- through her son Diljeet Singh (since deceased) in three instalments being the consideration for the illegal settlement of certain Government lands in her favour which could not be and the appellants have rightly been convicted for the alleged charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code simpliciter for their specific role in such offence. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the specific case of the prosecution was that the appellant cheated the mother of the informant as well as his brother Diljeet Singh (since deceased) by making false promise and with dishonest intention to get some certain Government lands settled in her name and in lieu of that they received a sum of Rs. 70,000/- and that they also obtained her signatures on ten blank papers. 11. 70,000/- and that they also obtained her signatures on ten blank papers. 11. Before adverting to the evidence of the prosecution party I find it imperative to reproduce the provisions of Section 420, IPC which speaks: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property: Whoever, cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to delivery any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to line. The cheating has been defined in Section 415 of the IPC which runs thus: 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 intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission cause or is likely to cause damage or arm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to be "cheat". Explanation.A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. 12. The allegation against the appellant was that they accepted a sum of Rs. 70,000/- in instalments from the informants mother with the promise that they would get the Government land settled in her favour. Admittedly, none of the appellants herein is the authority to settle the Government land in favour of the mother of the informant (PW 4) and the fact was known to her from before as could be evident from her testimony. I further find that there is no documentary evidence of such transaction. Though the prosecution pleaded that amount to the tune of Rs. 70,000/-was delivered to the appellants in three instalments after drawing it from the bank but no statement of account of the concerned bank was brought on record as the corroborative evidence. Similarly, no chit of paper has been produced on behalf of the prosecution being the receipt of Rs. 70,000/- or part of it drawn by the appellants. 70,000/-was delivered to the appellants in three instalments after drawing it from the bank but no statement of account of the concerned bank was brought on record as the corroborative evidence. Similarly, no chit of paper has been produced on behalf of the prosecution being the receipt of Rs. 70,000/- or part of it drawn by the appellants. I find substance in the argument on behalf of the appellants that such a huge amount could not be delivered without obtaining receipt. It was further contended that signature of the mother of the informant was obtained on ten blank papers but there is no evidence on record that any of such sheets was converted into any valuable security for the gains of the appellants so as to attract a corroborative evidence. 13. I find from the judgment impugned that some of the witnesses were consistent that when the appellants refused to return the money, Diljeet Singh (since deceased) approached Sushil Kumar Singh (PW 6), Municipal Ward Commissioner who called both the parties at his house by convening panchayati attended by the witnesses wherein the appellants asked latitude for two months time to return the money but the PW 4 Chhani Devi admitted in her testimony that even in that panchayati no document in respect of acknowledgment of the acceptance of amount was drawn by the appellants. The fact of the panchayali was admitted by the PW 6 in his testimony before the trial Court but he is also silent in respect of any document prepared in the panchayati. 14. I further observe from the materials on the record that the amount alleged to be paid to the appellants to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- in instalments were not legal charges for the settlement of certain Government land and that the place of land for the proposed and alleged settlement was no where specified. PW 4 admitted that the appellants were not the authority under law to settle the land in her favour and therefore, it can safety be observed that the parties had entered into an agreement not enforceable by law under the Contract Act. It is settled that the party to an illegal contract should not be allowed to prosecute a criminal charge when such agreement cannot be performed under law by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. 15. It is settled that the party to an illegal contract should not be allowed to prosecute a criminal charge when such agreement cannot be performed under law by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction. 15. I further find from the statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 of Cr PC that incriminating materials were not properly explained to them rather it was not specific as to from whom they had obtained a sum of Rs. 70,000/- to get the Government land settled and that in whose favour. I further find that no question was put to them conspicuously that they were not the authority under the law for the settlement, of Government land. In this manner the appellants have been highly prejudiced for not being confronted with the relevant incriminating materials but they have been convicted and sentenced for the charge under Section 420, IPC. It would not be out of place to mention that the appellants for securing their bail during the pendency of this appeal had deposited a sum of Rs. 60,000/-as per direction of this Court which was accepted by the mother of the informant, Chhani Devi, PW 4 without prejudice in any manner to the appellants. 16. For the discussion made herein above, I find and observe that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt and the charge being not proved and their conviction and sentence of imprisonment therefore, cannot be sustained. I observe a reasonable doubt as to their complicity and it goes in favour of the appellants. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment as well as the sentence passed against the appellants in S.T. No. 179 of 2000 arising out of Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No. 651 of 1998 by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC II Dhanbad is set aside. The appellants are acquitted and their bail bonds stand discharged. 18. Needless to say that for the reasons stated, the amount of Rs. 60,000/- drawn by the mother of the informant Chhani Devi under orders of this Court shall not be disturbed. I.A. No. 1034 of 2007 In view of the above order, the I.A. No. 1034 of 2007 stands disposed of.