title and when the same cannot be reflected from the revenue records, clearly transferring such lands without any basis or iota or any semblance of title over the land in question, the execution of such sale deeds is obviously fraudulent and the sections under which cognizance has been taken is correct, including Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted that on the contrary, right from the late 1920’s, the name of the forefathers/ancestors of the opposite party no. 2, being reflected in the official revenue records of the Government, the petitioners could not, under any circumstances, have sold the lands without first getting declaration with regard to their right, title and ownership over such lands. It was further submitted that the decision of the Court in the case of Md. Abdul Raquib (supra) is misplaced for the persons before the Court were the vendors and the Court held that they can be said to have cheated only by the purchaser of the property for wrongly representing themselves as the owner of the land and purchaser not having filed the case, it cannot be said that the said petitioners had committed the offence of cheating. It was submitted that in the present case, the opposite party no. 2 is the owner of the lands which have been fraudulently sold by the petitioners and, thus, obviously even if the vendors may have a case against the petitioners, the opposite party no. 2 definitely has the right and
