Judgment : 1. This revision arises against two concurrent judgments of conviction for offence under Section 420 IPC. This petitioner and an another stood trial for offence under Section 420 IPC in C.C.No.23 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore.2. The prosecution case was that this petitioner/A1 called P.W.1, on 15.11.1996, represented that the second accused was running a financial business; that he required Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh) there for and that if P.W.1 advanced such sum, he would be paid a sum of Rs.30 lakh within one week. Making such false representation, the petitioner/A1 caused P.W.1 to believe such representation to be true and divested him of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and thereby committed the offence. 3. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined five witnesses and marked three exhibits. None were examined on behalf of the defence nor were any exhibits marked. The accused denied the offence upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 4. Upon consideration of the materials before it, the trial Court convicted the accused of offence under Section 420 IPC and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, three months simple imprisonment. Against such finding, petitioner moved C.A.No.43 of 2006, which came to be dismissed by the Additional District and sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vellore, confirming the finding and sentence of the trial Court, under judgment dated 7.5.2008. There against this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel on either side. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Ex.P1 executed by the co-accused and attested by this petitioner as witness inform of promise to pay a sum of Rs.55 lakhs within two weeks against receipt of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and was of date 15.11.1996. The complaint of P.W.1 was of the year 2002 registered in Crime No.25 of 2002, on the file of respondent. Learned counsel submitted that what was essentially a civil transaction and what had become a time barred debt was sought to be given criminal colour. The complaint of P.W.1 was of the year 2002 registered in Crime No.25 of 2002, on the file of respondent. Learned counsel submitted that what was essentially a civil transaction and what had become a time barred debt was sought to be given criminal colour. Submitting that as a witness to Ex.P1 this petitioner would not have been liable even in any civil action had the same been entered upon in time, learned counsel drew reference to the evidence of P.W.1, wherein such witness had stated that since civil litigation was a time drawn process, he had resorted to preferring the complaint. 7. A bare perusal of Ex.P1 informs of P.W.1 chasing a pipe dream in hoping to have a return of Rs.55 lakhs (lower Courts informing Rs.30 lakhs) as against an advance of Rs.5 lakhs within a period of two weeks. If one party is naive enough to expect such return and the other has promised the same, it will be most difficult to presume an intention of deception at initiation of the transaction, which alone would constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that he resorted to preferring the complaint only because the period for moving a civil action had expired. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Revision shall stand allowed. The judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore, passed in C.A.No.43 of 2006, dated 7.5.2008, confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Vellore, passed in C.C.No.23 of 2005, dated 12.04.2006 shall stand set aside. Fine amount paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to him. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.