JUDGMENT : This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 05.12.2014 passed in Cr. Appeal No.45 of 2010, by which conviction of the petitioner for the offences under section 419, 465, 467 and 468 IPC has been confirmed by the appellate court however sentence awarded to him has been reduced from three years to one year. 2. Two-fold submissions have been made on behalf of the accused-petitioner; (i) once charge under section 120-B IPC has failed without recording a finding that there is independent evidence to convict the accused for the offence as alleged by the prosecution, conviction of the petitioner for the substantive offence is unsustainable, and (ii) the mandatory provision under section 360 Cr.P.C has been given a go-by. 3. On an allegation that the cheque for Rs.10,000/- drawn in his name which was sent from the LIC office was not delivered to him and on enquiry he has come to know that the said cheque has been cleared in favour of Central Cooperative Bank, Hirapur, the informant lodged a written complaint on the basis of which Dhanbad P.S.Case No.600 of 1996 was registered for the offence under sections 419/420/465/467/468/120-B IPC. 4. After investigation a charge-sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner, however, investigation against the co-accused–Sanchayan Chatterjee was kept pending. 5. During the trial five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and copies of LIC Premium Receipt, Duplicate LIC Policy, etc. were tendered in evidence. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate on the basis of the evidence laid before him came to a conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges under section 419/465/467/468/120-B IPC against the petitioner, however, charge for the offence under sections 420/120-B IPC has failed. 7. The learned Magistrate has held, thus; “15. It is apparent from the case record that the accused Sanchayan Chatterjee opened the account in the name of Debashish Chatterjee in Central Co-operative Bank, Hirpur, Dhanbad and he was introduced by the accused Gopal Kumar Sahu in that Bank. Thereafter, the accused deposited the cheque of Rs.5000/- in that account issued by L.I.C and further withdrawn 5000/- Rs. It is apparent from the case record that the accused Sanchayan Chatterjee opened the account in the name of Debashish Chatterjee in Central Co-operative Bank, Hirpur, Dhanbad and he was introduced by the accused Gopal Kumar Sahu in that Bank. Thereafter, the accused deposited the cheque of Rs.5000/- in that account issued by L.I.C and further withdrawn 5000/- Rs. from that account is suggests that the introducer Gopal Kumar Sao knew the accused Sanchayan Chatterjee and on his introduction the Bank opened his account in the name of Debashish Chatterjee which reflects that there was a conspiracy between both the accused persons for the fraudulent transactions” 8. The learned Magistrate has inflicted the following punishments on the petitioner: “The accused namely Gopal Kumar Sao is hereby convicted u/ss-419/465/467/468/120-B of I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years u/s-419/120 of I.P.C with fine of Rs.500/- and in default S.I. for 15 days, and u/s 465/120-B of I.P.C. R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- only and in default S.I. 15 days, u/ss-467/120-B of I.P.C R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500=00 and in default S.I. for 15 days, u/ss-468/120-B of I.P.C R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500/- and in default S.I. for 15 days. All the sentences however, shall run concurrently. The period undergone in jail custody ordered to be set-off. O/c to provide free copy of this judgment to l’d defence Lawyer.” 9. In Cr. Appeal No.45 of 2010, which was filed by the petitioner challenging his conviction, the appellate court has held that the accused-appellant was rightly convicted for the offence under section 419, 465, 467 and 468 IPC. 10. By now it is well-settled that if no finding is returned on a specific charge framed against an accused it has to be understood in law that the said charge has failed[refer, “Lokendra Singh vs. State of M.P.”-1999 SCC (Cri.) 371]. The learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for the offence under section 419, 465, 467, 468 r/w 120-B IPC, however, the appellate court has found conviction of the petitioner by the trial court valid only for the offence under section 419, 465, 467 and 468 IPC. Effect of this in law would be that the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed under section 120-B IPC; offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence unlike section 34 IPC. 11. Effect of this in law would be that the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed under section 120-B IPC; offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence unlike section 34 IPC. 11. The essential ingredients of cheating as defined under section 415 of the Indian Penal Code is deceit through fraudulent or dishonest means. What would amount to cheating has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati vs. CBI” (2003) 5 SCC 257 , thus; to hold a person guilty of cheating as defined under section 415 of the Indian Penal Code it is necessary to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise with an intention to retain the property. Cheating is an essential ingredient for constituting the offence under section 419 and 420 IPC, both. It is pertinent to note that while the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge under section 420 IPC he has been convicted under section 419 IPC. That is to say, he has been convicted for cheating by personation. But there is no independent evidence of personation by the petitioner. In fact, it was the co-accused namely, Sanchayan Chatterjee against whom allegation of cheating by impersonation has been levelled. Charge against the petitioner is that he has identified the co-accused as Devashish Chatterjee. 12. In so far as, conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 465, 467, 468 IPC is concerned, suffice would be to indicate that the prosecution has not established that before he had signed the account opening form identifying the account-holder as Devashish Chatterjee, he has himself visited the bank and identified the impersonator in presence of the Bank officers as Devashish Chatterjee. PW-1–the Assistant Manager of the Co-operative Bank, Hirapur has admitted in his cross-examination that it was not the petitioner who has withdrawn the money and infact he is the one who has disclosed the complete details of the impersonator. PW-1 has stated that the informant-Devashish Chatterjee has received his entire amount and the accused-petitioner had no bad intentions. The General Manager of the bank who has been examined as PW-2 has disclosed that it was the petitioner who has brought the fraudster before the bank so that appropriate steps may be taken by the bank against him. PW-1 has stated that the informant-Devashish Chatterjee has received his entire amount and the accused-petitioner had no bad intentions. The General Manager of the bank who has been examined as PW-2 has disclosed that it was the petitioner who has brought the fraudster before the bank so that appropriate steps may be taken by the bank against him. The prosecution witnesses have stated that the petitioner is running a betel shop situated outside the bank and initially the informant-Devashish Chatterjee suspected the role of the postal peon and the bank officials. 13. On the basis of the above evidence, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner had requisite mens rea. 14. Section 361 Cr.P.C imposes a duty on the courts to record reasons for not granting benefit to an accused under section 360 Cr.P.C. The trial Magistrate has infact considered the provisions under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, however, he has not recorded a reason why the benefit under section 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 or section 360 Cr.P.C cannot be extended to the petitioner. The appellate court is completely silent on this aspect. The fact that the appellate court has reduced sentence of the petitioner from 3 years to 1 year is a pointer that there are mitigating circumstances in favour of the petitioner. The prosecution has not brought on record that the petitioner is a habitual offender and there were other criminal cases registered against him. The manner of occurrence as disclosed by the prosecution and evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 indicate that it was a simple act of signing an account opening form. The petitioner is the one who has disclosed the identity of the fraudester and brought him before the bank are the circumstances which were required to be considered by the courts below, however, contrary to the mandate under section 361 Cr.P.C no finding has been recorded by the courts below why benefit under section 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and section 360 Cr.P.C cannot be granted to the petitioner. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit under section 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It is, accordingly, granted to him. Sentence awarded to the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2010 is modified to the above extent. 16. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit under section 3/4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It is, accordingly, granted to him. Sentence awarded to the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2010 is modified to the above extent. 16. On execution of a bond for three years within the next six weeks, the petitioner shall be on probation. The petitioner is discharged of the liability of the bail-bonds furnished by him pursuant to the order dated 10.03.2015 passed by this Court by which he was granted bail. The Probation Officer shall submit a report every six months before the trial court and if any violation is reported against the petitioner, he would be taken into the custody. 17. This criminal revision petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.