https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313522 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. en-us Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Apr 2024 12:52:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313522 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 31 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313522