Dishonest intention at inception distinguishes cheating from breach of contract, and the conviction was upheld.

A false promise made with dishonest intention at inception, followed by inducement to part with money, constitutes cheating rather than a mere civil breach of contract. The decisive question is whether the accused had fraudulent intent when the representation was made; such intent may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, including receipt of money in instalments and a sham assurance of securing employment. Dishonoured cheques did not change the character of the transaction, and the conviction was not based on the ingredients of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The conviction under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners' conviction for cheating with common intention was sustainable on the evidence, and whether the case was one of mere breach of contract or a criminal offence of cheating.

Analysis: To attract the offence of cheating, the prosecution must show deception and dishonest or fraudulent inducement, with the culpable intention existing at the time the promise or representation is made. The distinction between a civil breach of promise and cheating lies in the initial intention of the accused. On the facts proved, the petitioners induced the complainant to part with money on a false assurance of securing a government job for his brother, received the amount in instalments, and the surrounding circumstances showed that the promise was never genuine. The Court also found that the dishonoured cheques did not alter the nature of the transaction and that the ingredients of the offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act were not the basis of the conviction.

Conclusion: The conviction under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld, and the challenge to the sentence failed.

Final Conclusion: The criminal revision was found to be without merit, and the conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A false promise made with dishonest intention at the inception, followed by inducement to deliver money, constitutes cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code; mere subsequent non-performance does not by itself amount to cheating, but the initial fraudulent intent can be inferred from the proved circumstances.

---