Explanation:

Here’s what’s going on:

- Section 221 CrPC lets a court charge someone when it's unclear which specific offense an act amounts to, but all possibilities stem from the same facts.

- Option 1 says: "He may be charged with theft, receiving stolen property, criminal breach of trust and cheating."

- If you look closely, this says the person can be charged with all of those together.

- Option 2 says: "He may be charged with having committed theft, or receiving stolen property, or criminal breach of trust or cheating."

- This means the person could be charged with any one of those, since the facts might fit any but it's not clear which.

- Option 3 says: "either (A) and (B)": that is, either Option 1 or 2.

- Option 4: none of them.

- But the facts here are about a person contradicting himself on oath (saying one thing before a magistrate and the opposite before the Sessions Court). This is classic perjury or giving false evidence—nothing to do with theft, receiving stolen property, criminal breach of trust, or cheating.

- Section 221 allows charging where it is uncertain which one (of similar nature) applies, but all the options above list theft etc., which aren't relevant. The correct charge here is perjury (Sections 191–193 IPC). So, none of the above options apply to your fact pattern.