JUDGMENT M.K. Mudgal, J. Heard on admission. With the consent of parties, the matter is being finally heard and the record perused. 1. The petitioner-complainant has filed this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 25.6.2009 passed by the Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in Cr. Appeal 54 of 2008 acquitting the respondent No. 1 Asharam from the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 2. The facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that on 16.5.2002, the petitioner-complainant lodged a report at PS Bhander, District Datia against the respondent No. 1-Asharam and Nathuram (now dead) alleging that in Village Chandraul in Ward No. 3 Shankar Ji temple is situated, nearby it a plot of Government land admeasuring 45 ft. x 25 ft. was lying vacant. Through the Government land complainant and villagers used to come to Shankar Jai temple. The accused persons were friends and they used to conspire and illegally usurp Government land. On 31.12.2001, Nathuram became seller and sold the said land to Asharam and prepared forged documents relating to the said land and made forged registry. Respondent No. 1 is neither having title to nor having possession of the said land. Nathuram had no right to sell the said land and he knew that the said land belonged to the Government. On 07.01.2002, complainant went to Shankar Ji temple and saw the accused was digging foundation with a spade. He restrained him for doing so, then the accused-Asharam said he had purchased the land and the complainant had no right to pass through it. In this regard, the complainant submitted a complaint under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. before the S.D.M. which is pending for consideration. Thereafter, the complainant obtained certified copy of registry from of office of Registrar and came to know that land ad-measuring 25x25 ft. was purchased by the respondent/accused from Nathuram who had no title to or interest in the property for sale. Accused-Nathuram and accused Asharam have illegally usurped the Government land by dishonestly preparing the forged document. The police took no action on the complaint lodged by the complainant, therefore, a complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhander under Sections 468, 120-B & 420 of IPC. Accused-Nathuram and accused Asharam have illegally usurped the Government land by dishonestly preparing the forged document. The police took no action on the complaint lodged by the complainant, therefore, a complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhander under Sections 468, 120-B & 420 of IPC. On 16.04.2002, the Judicial Magistrate First Class took cognizance of the complaint and directed the police station for registration of the case and to file charge-sheet. Thereafter, Police Station Bhander registered a criminal case bearing Crime No. 77/2002 under Section 420, 468 & 120-B of IPC against the accused Asharam and Nathuram and after investigation filed the charge-sheet. 3. Learned trial court framed charge under Section 420 of IPC against the accused persons. During trial, accused Nathuram died, therefore his name was deleted. The learned trial court after recording evidence of the witnesses, perusing the documents brought on record and having heard learned counsel for the parties, convicted the accused/respondent No. 1 under Section 420 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years RI with fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondents No. 1 preferred a appeal before the appellate court which was allowed and the respondent No. 1 was acquitted under Section 420 of IPC. Hence, this revision. 5. On perusal of the record, indisputably, it is evident that the disputed land which was sold by Nathuram to the respondent Asharam was not of the ownership of the petitioner/complainant. As per allegations of the complainant, the said land belongs to the Government, owing to which, Nathuram had no right to sell the said property. In this manner, it is inferred that the petitioner was not cheated by neither Nathuram nor respondent Asharam in any manner and the sale deed dated 31.12.2001 executed by Nathuram was in his own name, in the said circumstances, prima-facie it cannot be said that the deed executed by Nathuram was fake and forged in any manner. 6. Regarding section 420 of IPC the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., : 2010 CrLJ 2223 has elaborately discussed in para 13 & 14 of the judgment, which reads as under:- "13. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. 6. Regarding section 420 of IPC the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., : 2010 CrLJ 2223 has elaborately discussed in para 13 & 14 of the judgment, which reads as under:- "13. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of "cheating" are as follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security). 14. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code." 7. On perusal of the impugned judgment dated 25.06.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in Criminal Appeal No. 54/2008, it transpires that the findings recorded by the appellate court acquitting the respondent/accused are based on cogent reasons, as the complainant was not deceived by the accused by alleged sale. Hence, offence under Section 420 of IPC was not made out against the respondent/accused. The learned trial court committed error in convicting the respondent in the aforesaid offence. 8. Considering the aforesaid view held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this court comes to the conclusion that the revision filed by the complainant is merit-less. No interference is required in the impugned judgment, therefore, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.