I.A. Ansari, J.@mdashThis revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 31.03.2008, passed, in Criminal Appeal No. 46 (K)/2006,
whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 4, Kamrup, Guwahati, has dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order,
dated 05.07.2006, passed, in Complaint Case No. 63672004, by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, convicting the
accused-petitioner u/s 420 IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 years and also pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, in
default of fine, suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.
2. Heard Ms. S.D. Baruah, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
3. The case of the persecution, as unfolded, at the trial, was, in brief, thus: On 04.09.2001, the accused took an amount of Rs. 75,000/- from the
complainant with an assurance that the accused, who is an employee of the Flood Control Department, would arrange a job for the son of the
complainant in the Flood Control Department, Government of Assam, within a period of six months from the date of receiving the money, but the
accused neither got the complainant''s son any job nor did he refund the money. Not only that the accused did not refund the money, he even
started misbehaving and threatening the complainant.
4. In the face of the cogent evidence brought on record, it could not be disputed, in this revision, that accused had indeed, received Rs. 75,000/-
pursuant to the agreement aforementioned. This agreement, as has been found by the learned Court below, was an agreement, whereby the
accused had undertaken to provide a job to the son of the complainant. Not even an iota of evidence exists on record to show that the accused
had any means to provide such a job or intended to provided any job at all to the complainant''s son. In such circumstances, and in the total
absence of anything showing to the effect that the accused had the means to provide the complainant''s son with a job as had been promised by
him, there can be no escape from the conclusion, and have been rightly concluded by the learned Courts below, that the accused, even at the time,
when he had received the money, knew well that he would not be able to provide any job and yet he induced the complainant to part with the
money, with a promise to get the complainant''s son a job in Flood Control Department. In the face of these proven facts, no fault can be found in
the conclusion reached by the learned Court below that the accused-petitioner had dishonestly induced the complainant to part with the money and
thereby committed an offence punishable, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, u/s 420 IPC. Based on the evidence, so adduced, the
learned trial Court convicted the accused, as indicated hereinabove, and the learned appellate Court has upheld the conviction. Even if the
agreement, in question, is treated as illegal, the offence of cheating is still complete inasmuch as the accused-petitioner is clearly proved to have
dishonestly induced the complainant to part with the money as aforesaid. In such a situation, the conviction of the accused-petitioner cannot be said
to have been suffering from any infirmity, legal or factual.
5. Coupled with the above, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the sentence passed against the accused-petitioner, cannot be said
to be harsh or unreasonable.
6. Because of what has been discussed and pointed out above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the conviction of the accused-petitioner
and/or the sentence passed against him. This revision, therefore, not admitted and shall accordingly stand dismissed.