Dishonest intention in credit sales must exist at the time of contracting; later insolvency alone does not prove cheating.

For cheating in a credit sale, the prosecution must prove that the trader had a dishonest intention, or no reasonable expectation of payment, at the time the goods were ordered. Mere financial embarrassment, later insolvency, or subsequent inability to pay is not enough to establish deceit. The Court found the surrounding evidence, including other transactions and a mortgage over stock, too weak to prove contemporaneous fraudulent intent beyond reasonable doubt. On that basis, the cheating conviction could not stand and the accused was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether a trader who ordered goods on credit, while in embarrassed financial circumstances and later becoming insolvent, could be convicted of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that he had no dishonest intention at the time of the contract.

Analysis: The essential question was whether, on the date of the contract, the accused had a dishonest intention not to pay for the goods or no reasonable expectation of being able to pay within a reasonable time. Mere inability to pay later, or the fact that the accused was financially embarrassed, was held insufficient by itself to establish deceit. The evidence of other unconnected transactions and of the mortgage over the stock was considered too weak to prove that the accused had entered into the transaction with fraudulent intent. The Court treated the relevant inquiry as one directed to the accused's state of mind at the time the goods were ordered, and held that the prosecution had not proved dishonest intention beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The accused was not proved to have cheated the complainant, and the conviction could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the conviction was set aside, and the accused was acquitted.

Ratio Decidendi: For cheating by obtaining goods on credit, the prosecution must prove dishonest intention or lack of reasonable expectation of payment at the time of the transaction; subsequent insolvency or mere embarrassed circumstances are insufficient without proof of contemporaneous deceit.

---