JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This revision petition is filed, under Section 397, read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and order dated 12-10-2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon, in Criminal Appeal No. 13/2007 dismissing the criminal appeal and upholding the judgment and order, dated 13-06-2007, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morigaon, in GR Case No. 215/2004, convicting the accused-petitioner, under Section 420 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 (one) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 2 (two) months. 2. I have heard Mr. BM Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-petitioner, and Mr. NK Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. The facts leading to the case is that, Sri Jadav Das, Smt. Lahari Das and Smt. Sewali Devi lodged an FIR on 04-04-2004 in Morigaon Police Station alleging that the accused persons Sri Upen Deka and Smt. Sinu Deka are their neighbours and they had received an amount of Rs. 25,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- respectively from the informants assuring them that they would provide them some employments in Noonmati Oil Refinary, Guwahati. According to them, the amount was received as security deposits. The aforesaid three persons, from whom the accused-petitioners took the money, were taken to Guwahati and a rented house was arranged for their stay, and thereafter, they were given employment under a local contractor, as temporary measure. The boys returned home after one month as no employment was given to them by the accused-petitioner, as assured. The accused also did not return the money to them on their demand; rather, avoided them on this or that pretext. 4. On the above facts, the aforesaid three persons, namely, Sri Jadav Das, Smt. Lahari Das and Smt. Sewali Devi filed the FIR with Morigaon Police Station, which was registered as Morigaon Police Station Case No. 55/2004, under Sections 420/406 IPC, investigated into it, collected evidence and then submitted charge-sheet under Sections 420/406 of the IPC against the accused person. The co-accused named in the FIR, Smt. Sinu Deka, was not charge-sheeted. 5. On appearance of the accused-petitioner, a formal charge, under Sections 420/406 of the IPC was framed to which he pleaded innocence. Therefore, the trial commenced. The co-accused named in the FIR, Smt. Sinu Deka, was not charge-sheeted. 5. On appearance of the accused-petitioner, a formal charge, under Sections 420/406 of the IPC was framed to which he pleaded innocence. Therefore, the trial commenced. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner denied the allegations made against him and also declined to adduce any evidence from his side. 6. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, which included the Investigating Police Officer and the defence examined none. 7. The evidence of PW1 is that the accused-petitioner received an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from him assuring that he would give an employment to PW1’s son, Raju Das. Although he demanded initially an amount of Rs. 40,000/-. 8. PW4, Smt. Sandhani Das, wife of PW1, was also present at the time of transaction between the accused-petitioner and PW1. The accused-petitioner took the son of PW1 with other candidates to Guwahati, kept them in a rented house. After three months, they went back to their homes as no job was provided to them as assured. They were made to work under a contractor only instead of employment in Oil Refinery. The accused-petitioner also refused to return the money taken from PW1. 9. PW2 and PW3 also deposed in the same way that the accused-petitioner had taken the amount of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively from them with assurance that he would arrange employment for the nephew and the son of PW2 and PW3 respectively in Noonmati Oil Refinery. The evidence of PW4 makes it appear that he has consistently corroborated the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3. PWs 1, 2 and 3 are also informants in this case and FIR (Ext.1) was exhibited through PW1. 10. PW5, Bhogeswar Konwar, also deposed that the accused-petitioner received an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from him for giving him job in Noonmati Oil Refinery. 11. PW7, Rajib Nath, who is the nephew of PW2 is found heard saying in clear words that the accused-petitioner had taken Rs. 30,000/-, for arranging a job for him at Noonmati Oil Refinery, but did not provide the job as promised by the accused-petitioner. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses remained un-assailed during cross-examination. 12. 11. PW7, Rajib Nath, who is the nephew of PW2 is found heard saying in clear words that the accused-petitioner had taken Rs. 30,000/-, for arranging a job for him at Noonmati Oil Refinery, but did not provide the job as promised by the accused-petitioner. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses remained un-assailed during cross-examination. 12. The evidence on record makes it appear that the accused-petitioner, by taking money from the aforesaid PWs, particularly, PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5 assured them to provide job in Noonmati Oil Refinery and by not providing job, as assured, he deceived them. He had put them to believe, in the light of evidence of PWs 1 to 4, that he would provide the job to them and for that purpose, he received some money as indicated above. He not only failed to provide job, but also avoided them when they demanded return of money. Such conduct of the accused-petitioner clearly indicates that he deceived the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, by making false promise. Had he not dishonestly induced them to part with money or to deliver money to them, they would not have paid the amount, as aforesaid, to the accused-petitioner and such act of the accused-petitioner amounts to cheating as provided in Section 420 of the IPC. 13. On perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court as well as the judgment of the learned appellate Court, it is clearly found that the decisions rendered by both the learned Courts below is based on the evidence on record and there is no impropriety and illegality in the judgments. 14. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that the informants were provided with jobs by the accused-petitioner under a contractor in the Noonmati Oil Refinery and as such the promise made by the accused-petitioner was effectively materialised, but the fact remains that the PWs 1 to 4 returned home back as they were not provided with the jobs in the Oil Refinery and instead, they were made to work under a contractor there. While the accused-petitioner assured for providing jobs in the Oil Refinery, it will definitely mean that they will be provided jobs in the establishment of Oil Refinery, not under a private contractor. That apart, ‘job’ in the instant case, from the tone and tenor of the complaint as well as the evidence on record, means regular job with regular salary. While the accused-petitioner assured for providing jobs in the Oil Refinery, it will definitely mean that they will be provided jobs in the establishment of Oil Refinery, not under a private contractor. That apart, ‘job’ in the instant case, from the tone and tenor of the complaint as well as the evidence on record, means regular job with regular salary. 15. Learned counsel for revision petitioner has submitted that the promise was not to give a regular job in the Oil Refinery establishment. At the same time, it has to be noticed that the promise was also not to provide job under a contractor. 16. That being so, the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, as above, does not merit consideration giving benefit to the accused-revision petitioner, which would result in his acquittal. 17. In the considered view of this Court, the judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below appears to be on the basis of materials on record and both the judgments are well written with appropriate legal and logical justification. Therefore, the order of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court as well as confirmed by learned appellate Court of Sessions Judge, Morigaon, is maintained. 18. So far as punishment is concerned, in the considered view of this Court, the period already undergone, if imposed as substantive sentence and if the fine is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-, it will meet the ends of justice. 19. It is submitted at the Bar that the accused-petitioner was in judicial custody during the investigation of the case for a period of about 32 days, w.e.f. 10-12-2004 to 12-01-2005, therefore, as stated above, the accused-revision petitioner is sentenced to the period already undergone, so far as substantive sentence is concerned. The fine imposed by the learned Courts below on the accused-revision petitioner is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/- and, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 20. The accused-revision petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court to serve out the sentence. 21. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 22. Send down the LCR along with a copy of this judgment and order.