JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) is filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment dated 16.04.2010, in Sessions Case No. 29/S/2009, on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Guntur (for short “the learned Special Judge”). The present appellants faced charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the SCs & STs Act”) under Sections 506, 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”). 2. The learned Special Judge acquitted the appellants for the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act and under Section 506 of the IPC, but found them guilty of the charge under Section 417 of the IPC, convicted them under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge after questioning A.1 and A.2 about the quantum of sentence and considering that A.1 as on date of the judgment is aged about 60 years and A.2 is aged about 72 years, sentenced them to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 15 days each for the offence under Section 417 of the IPC. 3. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge, for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief, as set out in the charge-sheet filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Guntur in Crime No. 125 of 2008 of Pattabhipuram Law and Order Police Station, alleging the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act and Section 506 of the IPC is as follows: (i) The de-facto complainant Gundabattuni Malakondaiah-PW.1 got substantial amount of Rs.7,00,000/- on his retirement. He belongs to Hindu Mala-Scheduled Caste and Gundabathuni Adilakshmi-PW.2 is his wife. He belongs to Hindu Mala-Scheduled Caste and Gundabathuni Adilakshmi-PW.2 is his wife. The accused were neighbours and known to them very intimately, who came to know about the receipt of amounts towards retirement benefits by PW.1 and approached PW.1 and also promised to give 24% p.a., interest on the amount and will repay the same as and when demanded and believing the same, PW.1 gave Rs.7,00,000/- to the accused and A.1 executed two promissory notes for Rs.1,00,000/- each under Exs.P7 and P8 and his wife-A2 executed five promissory notes under Exs. P2 to P6, each for Rs.1,00,000/-, repayable with interest at 24% p.a., in favour of PW.1 and his wife i.e., PW.2 and children and in spite of repeated demands for repayment, the accused were postponing the same. (ii) The son of the accused has also executed two promissory notes and PW.1 with fond hope of securing money for performing his daughter’s marriage kept money with the accused and they are making repeated demands and accused was postponing the same, on some pretext or other. Then, they took mediators namely Goli Venkata Ramana Rao-PW.3, Arekuti Prasada Reddy-PW.4 to the house of accused and demanded to pay the monies and accused replied that they will pay it shortly i.e., after couple of days. Hence, again on 04.07.2008, PWs. 1 and 2 went to the house of accused to get the money. The accused did not pay the money as promised before the elders. On the contrary, they abused and insulted them in public view and threatened them with dire consequences and having left with no option, PW.1 went to the police station and presented Ex.P1 complaint at 10.30 PM, which was registered as a case in Cr.No. 125/2018. Sub Divisional Police Officer, as per the directions of Superintendent of Police, Guntur under Ex.P15 proceedings, took up investigation, collected the promissory notes and also various signatures of the accused from the bank and sent them to Hand Writing Expert and confirmed that Exs.P2 to P8/ pronotes, were executed by accused. Further on 04.07.2008 when PWs. 1 and 2 went to the house of accused, both the accused abused them and insulted them in public view touching their caste and committed offence under Section 417 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act. 5. Further on 04.07.2008 when PWs. 1 and 2 went to the house of accused, both the accused abused them and insulted them in public view touching their caste and committed offence under Section 417 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act. 5. On appearance of the accused, the learned Special Judge framed charges under Sections 506 and 417 of the IPC and further under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act and explained to the accused in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To bring home the guilt against the accused, the prosecution, before the Special Judge, examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P16. 7. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, both the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution for which they denied the same. They did not adduce any defence evidence. 8. The learned Special Judge, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, gave a finding that prosecution did not prove the charges under Sections 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act and Section 506 of the IPC, as such found A1 and A2 not guilty of the same and acquitted them under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. However, the learned Special Judge found them guilty of the charge under Section 417 of the IPC, convicted them under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C. and after questioning them about the quantum of sentence, sentenced them as above. Felt aggrieved of the said judgment of the learned Special Judge in convicting them under Section 417 of the IPC, both the appellants filed the present appeal. 9. There is no appeal filed by the State with regard to the acquittal of the accused under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act and Section 506 of the IPC. Hence, the scope of the present appeal is confined to Section 417 of the IPC. 10. Now in deciding the present appeal the simple question that false for consideration is as follows: “1. Hence, the scope of the present appeal is confined to Section 417 of the IPC. 10. Now in deciding the present appeal the simple question that false for consideration is as follows: “1. Whether the prosecution before the learned Special Judge proved that both the accused dishonestly and fraudulently induced the de-facto complainant to part with an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- under different promissory notes and later with a dishonest intention omitted to make payments in the manner as alleged and as to whether accordingly they cheated the de-facto complainant. 2. Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment?” 11. POINT NOs.1 & 2: It is to be noted that when Section 415 of the IPC defines the cheating for which the accused are charged, Section 417 of the IPC provides for punishment of cheating. 12. Mr. A.Venkata Durga Rao, learned counsel, representing Mr.Durga Prasad Theegala, learned counsel for the appellants, would vehemently contend that absolutely there was no basis whatsoever for the learned Special judge to record a conviction under Section 417 of the IPC, for which F.I.R. was not registered, case was not investigated and even without there being any basis a charge under Section 417 of the IPC was framed and it was held to be proved without any evidence whatsoever. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the transaction between the de-facto complainant and the accused was of a civil in nature, borne out by about seven (7) promissory notes. So, the remedy for the de-facto complainant was to recourse Civil action in a competent Court of Law. The de-facto complainant allowed the time for institution of suit barred. Even none of the prosecution witnesses deposed that accused with a dishonest intention got the amounts from PW.1 and his family. So, without there being any evidence conviction of the accused is not sustainable. In support of his contentions, he would rely upon the decisions in Sarabjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2023 Live Law (SC) 157 and Satishchandra Ratanlal Shak vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2019) 9 SCC 148 . With the above submissions, he would contend that absolutely the conviction against the appellant is not at all sustainable. 13. Mr. Y.Jagadeeswara Rao, learned Special Assistant, representing learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State would, seeks to support the judgment of the Trial Court. With the above submissions, he would contend that absolutely the conviction against the appellant is not at all sustainable. 13. Mr. Y.Jagadeeswara Rao, learned Special Assistant, representing learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State would, seeks to support the judgment of the Trial Court. He would contend that the learned Special Judge made specific findings that the accused deliberately cheated the de-facto complainant and considering the evidence on record, conviction was given and the judgment of the learned Special Judge is not liable to be interfered with. 14. PW.1 is the de-facto complainant. PW.2 is the wife of the de-facto complainant. PW.3 is a person who came to know that A.1 has to pay some amounts to the de-facto complainant’s family. PW.4 is also a hearsay witness who came to know from PW.1 that accused borrowed money from him on different promissory notes. 15. Prosecution examined PW.5 to prove to the fact that PW.1 belonged to Scheduled Caste and accused belongs to Forward Caste. Through his examination, Ex.P9 and P10 i.e., the caste certificate of PW.1 and caste certificates of A.1 and A.2 were marked. PW.6 acted as Mahazar witness with regard to seizure of promissory notes seven (7) in number from the de-facto complainant i.e., PW.1 under the cover of Ex.P11 Mediatornama. PW.7 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pattabhipuram Law and Order Police Station, who registered the F.I.R. on 04.07.2008 at 10.30 PM., basing on the report of PW.1 as case in Crime No. 125 of 2008, under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act, Ex.P14 is original F.I.R. PW.8 is the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Guntur Town, who investigated the case and filed charge sheet. 16. The substance of the allegations in Ex.P1 were such that the accused borrowed amounts and when the de-facto complainant repeatedly asked them about the repayment, they committed offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act by abusing him in the name of the caste. As seen from the charge sheet, investigation was confined to the allegations under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act and Section 506 IPC. The cognizance was also taken under above provisions of law. As seen from the charge sheet, investigation was confined to the allegations under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act and Section 506 IPC. The cognizance was also taken under above provisions of law. As evident from the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer did not arrive to a conclusion that there was any element of cheating on the part of the accused in borrowing the amounts from the de-facto complainant and his family to a tune of Rs.7,00,000/-. Even it is not the case of the prosecution that any of the prosecution witnesses gave any statements brining out the offence under Section 415 of the IPC punishable under Section 417 of the IPC. However, apart from the charge under Section 3 (1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act and Section 506 of the IPC for which the charge sheet was laid, a further the charge under Section 417 of the IPC came to be framed as if A.1 on 01.10.2002 executed two promissory notes for Rs.1,00,000/- each, promising to repay the amount and cheated LW.1- Gundabattuni Malakondaiah. 17. However, the judgment of the Court was ultimately convicting A.1 and A.2 for the charge under Section 417 of the IPC. 18. Now, I would like to refer here only the relevant evidence seen so far as charge under Section 417 of the IPC is concerned. 19. The testimony of PW.1 is that in the year 2001 he took voluntary retirement. He received Rs.7,00,000/-towards retirement benefits. Having come to know that he is with the money, the accused came and stated that they will return the amount as and when he demanded with an interest of 24% p.a., He agreed for the said proposal and on 01.10.2002, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was given and at that time they executed and five (5) promissory notes. No one was present then. But when the accused came and made proposal they were with Goli Venkata Ramana Rao, Habib Khan, Mannem Srinivas and Arekuti Prasad Reddy. After one year, he went and demanded for return of amount, but they did not give. Witness again says that on 14.10.2002 another Rs.2,00,000/- was given to the accused. When he paid Rs.5,00,000/-, A.1 executed five(5) promissory notes one (1) in favour of his wife, two (2) in the name of his daughters i.e., Madhavilatha and Radhika and two (2) were in his name. Witness again says that on 14.10.2002 another Rs.2,00,000/- was given to the accused. When he paid Rs.5,00,000/-, A.1 executed five(5) promissory notes one (1) in favour of his wife, two (2) in the name of his daughters i.e., Madhavilatha and Radhika and two (2) were in his name. For further Rs.2,00,000/- two (2) promissory notes for Rs.1,00,000/-each in the name of his daughter –Sailaja and his son-Balaji were executed. Accused used to promise to pay the amount, soon after the marriage is fixed. In the year 2006, he performed marriage of his daughter. In the year 2007, he performed the marriage of another daughter. They promised to pay amount by December, 2006 stating that they will get the fixed deposits matured from Margadarshi Chit funds. Later, they absconded. This is substance of the evidence of PW.1 relating to the execution of promissory notes and the so called conduct of the accused. 20. PW.2 who is the wife of PW.1 spoke about execution of the promissory notes for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, as if believing the version of the accused they gave the amount to them for which, they executed promissory notes and later they did not repay the amount. They went to postpone amount. Ultimately they did not pay the amount and escaped from the house. 21. PW.3 is hearsay witness who learnt about the above episode from PW.1. PW.4 is also a hearsay witness who came to know about the above issue from PW.1. 22. As this Court is dealing with the offence under Section 417 of the IPC, the evidence of PW.5 who issued the caste certificates of PW.1 and A.1 and A.2, has no significance. There is no dispute that during the investigation, the police took out the promissory notes from PW.1 under the cover of Mahazarnama. The outcome of the investigation was not revealing any offence under Section 417 of the IPC. That is why the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet under Section 3 (1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act and Section 506 of the IPC. 23. Now, this Court has to see whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the form of examination of PWs.1 and 2 and by production of the Exs.P2 to P8 promissory notes would establish the offence under Section 417 of the IPC. The evidence of PWs. 23. Now, this Court has to see whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the form of examination of PWs.1 and 2 and by production of the Exs.P2 to P8 promissory notes would establish the offence under Section 417 of the IPC. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 is not such that both the accused with a dishonest intention or with a fraudulent intention made them to believe that they would repay the amount with interest @ 24 % p.a. compoundable with yearly rests and that believing their representation they parted with the amount and that ultimately they realized that they were cheated. Absolutely neither contents of Ex.P1 nor the outcome of the investigation nor the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, revealed the same. Added to that during the course of cross examination, PW.1 stated that he did not issue any notice to the accused demanding them to pay the amount. He denied that taking undue advantage of the promissory notes with him even after discharging the amounts, he foisted a false case. 24. Coming to the cross examination of PW.2, she deposed that they did not give any written notice to the accused calling upon them to repay the amount. She admitted that before April, 2008 or after April, 2008, accused did not give any written acknowledgment and promise to pay the amount due under the promissory notes. It is true that they have not filed any civil suit basing on Exs.P2 to P8 promissory notes. Witness says that as the accused were promising to pay the amount, they did not file any Civil Suit. She denied that entire amount was already paid and that she is deposing false. 25. It is to be noted that, PW.1 did not recourse to legal remedies available under law for alleged non-payment of the amounts covered under Exs.P2 to P8 by the accused. There is no dispute that the so called promissory notes under Exs.P2 to P8 were time barred by the time of Ex.P1 as PW.1 did not recourse to any legal action. It is quietly evident from the evidence on record. The evidence of PW.8 i.e., Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Guntur, reveals that basing on the authorization given by the Superintendent of Police, he proceeded to conduct investigation and during investigation, he examined several witnesses and he took over Exs.P2 to P8 from PW.1. It is quietly evident from the evidence on record. The evidence of PW.8 i.e., Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Guntur, reveals that basing on the authorization given by the Superintendent of Police, he proceeded to conduct investigation and during investigation, he examined several witnesses and he took over Exs.P2 to P8 from PW.1. His evidence did not disclose that a case is made out under Section 417 of the IPC. So, the evidence of Investigating Officer i.e., PW.8 did not reveal that the accused committed any offence under Section 415 of the IPC punishable under Section 417of the IPC. 26. The learned Special Judge after recording the findings that the prosecution did not prove the charges under Section 3 (1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act and Section 506 of the IPC, started discussion about Section 417 of the IPC in the judgment. As evident from the judgment of the learned Special Judge at para 22 of the judgment made a finding that the normal course of conduct for any person to discharge the amount would be to pay the amount by way of cheque or obtain receipt for the due payment. The learned Special Judge made adverse comments against the accused that their contention that the amount is repaid is not tenable and from the very contention itself, dishonest intention would be accepted. The learned Special Judge having acknowledged the fact that PW.1 did not file any civil suit or issued notice, but as the accused took a plea that they discharged amount for which they did not produce any proof, gave finding that from the very contention deception can be inferred. This Court is unable to agree with the said reasoning of the learned Special Judge for giving conviction to the accused under Section 417 of the IPC. It is a case where PW.1 was responsible for the time barring of the debt covered under Exs. P2 to P8. He did not testify that there was any element of the deception on the part of the accused. His evidence was confined relating to the offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act and Section 506 of the IPC alone. Simply because the accused failed to probablise their contention that they made discharge of the amounts under Exs.P2 to P8, it does not mean that they made such plea with any dishonest intention. His evidence was confined relating to the offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act and Section 506 of the IPC alone. Simply because the accused failed to probablise their contention that they made discharge of the amounts under Exs.P2 to P8, it does not mean that they made such plea with any dishonest intention. Absolutely the evidence is lacking that with a dishonest intention, they made PW.1 to believe that they would repay amount if the amount is lent and pursuant to such dishonest intention, they got the amounts from PW.1 and later deceived PW.1. Admittedly on the face of it, the dispute between PW.1 and A.1 and A.2 basing of Exs.P2 to P8 is nothing but a civil in nature. The learned Special Judge relied upon the decision of Kerala High in A.K. Ali vs. Ch. H. Mamutty and Another. The factual scenario in that case were that the accused was said to have promised to somebody to secure employment in the Gulf Countries and received some amounts and later, the said person was not provided with the employment as promised. A case was registered against the accused as he was said to have committed cheating. In that back ground, it was held that the allegations would attract the offence of cheating. 27. Coming to the present case on hand, there was a contract entered into between A.1 and A.2 at one hand and PW.1 and his family members at another hand being borne out from Exs.P2 to P8. So absolutely it is nothing but breach of contractual obligations arising Exs. P2 to P8. 28. In the Sarabjit Kaur’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that: a breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction. Merely the allegation that the opponent failed to keep up promise is not sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings. In the aforesaid case, the liability arose out of agreement of sale. So, the issue was of civil nature. As an element of fraudulent and dishonest intention was missing, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal quashing the F.I.R. 29. In Satishchandra Ratanlal Shak’s (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere breach of contract would not rise to criminal action. 30. So, the issue was of civil nature. As an element of fraudulent and dishonest intention was missing, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal quashing the F.I.R. 29. In Satishchandra Ratanlal Shak’s (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere breach of contract would not rise to criminal action. 30. Coming to the present case on hand, the whole intention as evident from Ex.P1 is to have remedy for the so called act of the accused in committing the offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act and Section 506 of the IPC. Ex.P1-F.I.R. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that absolutely there is no substantial evidence at all to prove the offence under Section 415 of the IPC punishable under Section 417 of the IPC against the appellants. In my considered view, the learned Special Judge on erroneous appreciation of the evidence on record, erred in giving conviction under Section 417 of the IPC. The judgment would disclose that basing on assumptions and presumptions, adverse remarks were made against A.1 and A.2. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that the evidence is absolutely lacking to connect the accused to the charge of Section 417 of the IPC, as such, the judgment of the learned Special Judge giving conviction under Section 417 of the IPC is liable to be interfered with. 31. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction sentence dated 16.04.2040, in Sessions Case No. 29/S/2009 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Guntur, thereby, the accused shall stand acquitted of the alleged charge under Section 417 of the IPC under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The fine amount if any paid by the accused shall be refunded to them after the appeal time is over. 32. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.