[2025:RJ-JP:34736] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 42/2006 Sheo Ram S/o Shri Hardeva aged 50 years, R/o Village Dusari, Police Station Baroni Distt. Tonk. ----Complainant/Petitioner Versus 1. Prahalad S/o Shri Chatra, R/o Dusari, Police Station Baroni, Distt. Tonk. ----Accused/Non petitioner 2. State of Rajasthan through P.P. ....Non- petitioner For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Sharma for Mr. Sandeep Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 13/08/2025 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON :: 17/09/2025 1. This revision petition has been preferred against the judgement dated 09.11.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tonk in Criminal Appeal No. 52/2004 by which he has acquitted the accused-respondent Prahalad for the offence under Section 420 IPC and reversed the judgement of conviction dated 20.11.2004 passed by learned First Class Magistrate, Newai in Crl. Case No. 233/2000 for the offence under Section 420 IPC. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present case are that an FIR was lodged against accused Prahalad by present complainant-petitioner Sheo Ram on 5.3.1998 mentioning that accused Prahalad sold the Government Land bearing Khasra No. [2025:RJ-JP:34736] (2 of 4) [CRLR-42/2006] 500 for a consideration of Rs. 2,000/- on 31.5.1996 to him and executed an agreement in favour of the complainant to which the accused had no right. 3. On the basis of FIR, charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the trial court and after completion of trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced however, on appeal he was acquitted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the factum of signature of accused on agreement to sale Ex.P/3 was not disputed by the accused himself and the prosecution has proved that agreement. It was well within the knowledge of the accused that he was not the owner of the disputed land still he has suppressed this fact from the petitioner and has induced him to pay Rs. 2000/- in the garb of agreement to sale. All the above acts show the malafide intention of the accused and ignoring this aspect, the appellate court has acquitted the accused which is not the intent of the relevant law. 5. None is present on behalf of accused-private respondent despite service. 6. I have heard the learned counsel and scanned the matter carefully. 7. On perusal of record, it is clear that in the agreement to sale executed by accused Ex.P/3, the description of the property as well as its boundaries are clearly narrated. [2025:RJ-JP:34736] (3 of 4) [CRLR-42/2006] 8. It is admitted position that the complainant and the accused both are residents of the same village. 9. Reading the site plan Ex.P/2 and Ex/P/14 of the disputed land demonstrates that bedsides the enclosures of accused Prahalad (disputed land), there are enclosures of other persons also having the possession on same chunk of land bearing Khasra No.500 including the complainant himself. 10. It is the normal phenomena that in such type of transactions when the full particulars are disclosed in the relevant document, it is responsibility of the purchaser to ascertain details of the land before purchasing it. However, in the present case, once the accused has disclosed complete description of the agreement then it cannot be presumed that he has suppressed any material things from the complainant. 11. The legal position is very clear that this is not the responsibility of the seller that he disclose the defect in the title of the property, it is responsibility of the purchaser that before purchasing and executing the agreement to sale, he must ascertain that the seller has the clear title and authority to sell the land or not. 12. The conviction under Section 420 IPC get legitimate only when it is proved that while the document was got executed, it was in the knowledge of the accused that he is not in legal possession of the same and he has criminal intent to cheat the complainant. [2025:RJ-JP:34736] (4 of 4) [CRLR-42/2006] 13. These facts also revealed in the evidence produced by the prosecution that the accused was in the possession of the disputed land since its ancestral time and besides him, enclosures of other persons were also there on same chunk of land including the complainant himself. 14. Hence, it cannot be said that the accused committed cheating in the strict legal sense especially when the complainant himself was in possession of chunk of same land. 15. Therefore, the appellate court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution in a right perspective hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgement of acquittal passed by the appellate court. 16. Thus, in view of what has been discussed above, the instant revision petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J bmg