JUDGMENT : (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel along with Ms. Supriya Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Praful Jojo, learned counsel for the State as well as Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. 2. The instant Criminal Revision is directed against order dated 21st May 2018 passed by Sri Om Prakash, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Ramgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the petitioner passed by Ms. Shweta Kumari, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in Mandu (Kujju) P.S. Case No.348 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No.2459 of 2000 (T.R. Case No.804 of 2012), by which, the petitioner has been convicted under section 420 read with 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo RI for a period of 3 years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months, has been affirmed and appeal has been dismissed. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that the informant used to do business of transportation of coal by giving his trucks on hire from M/s Satya Glass Industry, Industrial area, Buxar, due to which, the good relationship has developed between the informant and the owner of M/s Satya Glass Industry namely Binay Bhushan Tiwari @ Munna Tiwari. On 30.11.2000, co-accused-Munna Tiwari told the informant that his company has got allotment of coal but he has no money and if the money will not be deposited in time, the allotment will be cancelled and co-accused-Munna Tiwari offered him to invest money in his business with proposal to get benefit of 30 % profit from the total benefit. It is further alleged that in the beginning, the informant did not agree because he has kept the money for the purpose of marriage of his daughter but Munna Tiwari assured the informant that he will return his money within one month with profit. Thereafter, the informant agreed to pay money. It is further alleged that Munna Tiwari told the informant to pay the money to the Coal Handling Agent Dinesh Kumar Singh (petitioner) on 01.11.2000, then the informant said that he knew the petitioner as he used to come to his office. Thereafter, the informant agreed to pay money. It is further alleged that Munna Tiwari told the informant to pay the money to the Coal Handling Agent Dinesh Kumar Singh (petitioner) on 01.11.2000, then the informant said that he knew the petitioner as he used to come to his office. As per agreement, the petitioner came to the office of the informant on 01.11.2000 at Moti Sao where the informant and his friend namely Sachhidanand Singh were present and he gave Rs.5,58,000/- to the petitioner in several bundle by putting his initial as “RK” as per norms of the business. It is further alleged that the informant gave his bag for keeping the money but he refused and kept the money in his bag. Thereafter, the informant told the petitioner to come in his vehicle for State Bank of India, Kuju Branch, but the petitioner again refused to go with the informant and went away in his vehicle bearing Reg. No. BR-1E-6970. The whole activities raised suspicion against the petitioner, thereafter, the informant for clearing his doubt went to SBI Kuju Branch and inquire about the arrival of petitioner in the bank but he came to know that the petitioner had not come to the bank. Further, the informant called the owner of the Satya Glass Industry but he found that Munna Tiwari the owner of the Satya Glass Industry was not at his house. Thereafter, the informant along with his friend searched the petitioner at several places but failed to trace out the petitioner. It is further alleged that petitioner hatching criminal conspiracy with the co-accused Munna Tiwari has cheated the informant. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below submitted that admittedly no overt act has been attributed against petitioner and no ingredients of conspiracy or the offence of cheating is constituted against the petitioner. It is admitted case of the informant that petitioner was acting as an agent of the main accused Munna Tiwari with whom the informant has entered into an agreement in connection with some business and as a consideration money, present petitioner was deputed to receive the same. Therefore, no case of cheating is made out against the petitioner rather, if any case of cheating might be made out that may be against the employer of the petitioner, Munna Tiwari. Therefore, no case of cheating is made out against the petitioner rather, if any case of cheating might be made out that may be against the employer of the petitioner, Munna Tiwari. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the petitioner is absolutely perverse, illegal and not warranted under law. Accordingly, this revision is fit to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 have vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that other main co-accused is still traceless and there was conspiracy between the main accused and this petitioner and in pursuance of the conspiracy, the money was received by the present petitioner and part of the amount Rs.50,000/- was also recovered from his possession. Therefore, the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court holding the petitioner guilty for the offence under section 420 and 120 B of IPC is absolutely genuine and based upon materials available on record, which can not be interfered with by way of this revision, which is fit to be dismissed. 6. For the better appreciation of the case, it would be appropriate to discuss the relevant provisions of IPC. Section 415 IPC defines "cheating" which reads as under: "415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"." The essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are: 1. Deception of any person 2. (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person- (i) to deliver any property to any person; or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain Cr.M.P. No. 1241 of 2016 and its analogous cases any property; or (b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were no so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 7. 7. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating. 8. Section 420 IPC defines "cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property" which reads as under: "420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." 9. Section 420 IPC is aggravated form of cheating that includes inducement (to lead or move someone to happen) in terms of delivery of property as well as valuable securities. This section is also applicable to matters where the destruction of the property is caused by the way of cheating or inducement. Punishment for cheating is provided under this section which may extend to 7 years and also makes the person liable to fine. 10. To establish the offence of cheating in inducing the delivery of property, the following ingredients need to be proved: (i) The representation made by the person was false. (ii) The accused had prior knowledge that the representation he made was false, representation with dishonest intention in order to deceive the person to whom it was made. (iv) The act where the accused induced the person to deliver the property or to perform or to abstain from any act which the person would have not done or had otherwise committed. 11. As observed and held by this Court in R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam [R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC 739 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 454], the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows: (i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and (ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to: (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. Thus, cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC. 12. Thus, cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC. 12. So far, the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are concerned, the Hon’ble supreme court in case of Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641 held as under: 342. It would be appropriate to deal with the question of conspiracy. Section 120-B IPC is the provision which provides for punishment for criminal conspiracy. Definition of “criminal conspiracy” given in Section 120-A reads as follows: “120-A. When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,— (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.” The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be : (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object, (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, and (d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. From this, it necessarily follows that unless the statute so requires, no overt act need be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need not be accomplished, in order to constitute an indictable offence. Law making conspiracy a crime is designed to curb immoderate power to do mischief which is gained by a combination of the means. The encouragement and support which co-conspirators give to one another rendering enterprises possible which, if left to individual effort, would have been impossible, furnish the ground for visiting conspirators and abettors with condign punishment. The conspiracy is held to be continued and renewed as to all its members wherever and whenever any member of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of the common design. The conspiracy is held to be continued and renewed as to all its members wherever and whenever any member of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of the common design. For an offence punishable under Section 120-B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree to do or cause to be done illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. Offence of criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence. A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and an act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for use of criminal means. 351. As noted above, the essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a situation, criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement. Where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120-B read with the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 120-A, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under Section 120-B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary. The provisions, in such a situation, do not require that each and every person who is a party to the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the fulfilment of the object of conspiracy, the essential ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators to commit the crime and if these requirements and ingredients are established, the act would fall within the trappings of the provisions contained in Section 120-B. 13. Considering the ingredients of the offence of cheating as well as the criminal conspiracy and authorities of Hon’ble Apex Court as discussed above, I find that no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner as has been brought on record and neither he has misappropriated the money at the instance of the informant rather he has received money simply being employee of main accused of this case Munna Tiwari. Therefore, the ingredients of offence under sections 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code is not applicable against the petitioner. His conviction and sentence is absolutely unwarranted under law, therefore, the present and impugned judgement is set-aside. 14. Pending I.As., if any, is disposed of accordingly. 15. Let the copy of this order along with record of trial court be sent back for information and needful.