words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. The case of MCD v. State of Delhi and another (supra) was a case where the accused was granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and the said benefit was granted to the said accused without giving an opportunity to the Municipal Corporation(Appellant) to file counter affidavit and without calling a report of the Probation Officer in relation to the conduct of the accused. The accused in that case was earlier convicted and sentenced under Sections 332 and 461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 for committing offence of unauthorised construction and, therefore, was a previous convict and he had not disclosed the said fact to the High Court. In other words, the accused in that case had suppressed his previous conviction and thereby had sought the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and in the background of the aforesaid facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that when a litigant withholds a vital document or suppresses a material fact in order to gain
