Cheating requires dishonest inducement from the start; concealment discoverable by ordinary care did not sustain conviction.

Cheating under Section 420 IPC requires proof of dishonest or fraudulent inducement and a guilty intention at the inception of the transaction. Revisional interference is justified where the lower findings rest on patent error, misreading of evidence, or result in miscarriage of justice. On the stated facts, the complainant had the opportunity to make enquiries about title, the agreement to sell preceded the sale deed, and there was no reliable evidence that the accused induced delivery of property by deception. A finding that the accused knew of the will was treated as surmise and conjecture. Concealment of a defect discoverable with ordinary care did not amount to cheating, and the conviction was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustainable in the absence of proof of inducement and dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction.

Analysis: The revisional court may interfere where the findings below rest on patent error, misreading of evidence, or result in miscarriage of justice. For cheating, the prosecution must establish dishonest or fraudulent inducement and a guilty intention from the beginning of the transaction. On the evidence, the complainant himself had opportunity to make enquiries about title, the agreement to sell preceded the sale deed, and there was no reliable evidence that the accused induced the complainant to part with property by deception. The conclusion below that the accused knew of the will was held to rest on surmise and conjecture. In these circumstances, concealment of a defect which the buyer could have discovered with ordinary care did not amount to cheating.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was unsustainable and was set aside; the petitioner was acquitted.

---