ABHAYANAND MISHRA

VS
THE STATE OF BIHAR

BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR

REPORTED: A.I.R. 1961 SC 1698
DECIDED ON: SEPTEMBER 23RD 1958
FACTS
The appellant in the present case applied for the permission of appearance in the examination
for Masters of arts (M.A. English) as a private student. He showed before the authorities that
he was a graduate and he had done his graduation in the year 1951. Beside this he mentioned
in his application that he was a teacher in a particular school in which he was doing the job of
teaching. Further he mentioned in his application that he had admitted some certificate
attested by inspector of school and head-master. The offices of the university accepted the
statements of the appellant and granting him the permission he was informed to send two
photographs and to deposit the fees. After receiving the information, the appellant deposited
the fees required and two photographs. Consequently on 9th of April 1954 the university
posted the permission card to him through head master. After this, the university was
informed by the sources that the appellant was neither a graduate nor a teacher.

Issue:

 Criminal Law – Attempt to Cheat – Getting admission card from University on false
representation – Preparation to commit offence, differences – Admission card, if
Property – Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), ss. 420, 511.

Contentions by respective sides

Appellant

The appellant side raised the following contentions.

1. Firstly, that the appellant has not committed an attempt to cheat as he was only
making a preparation to commit the offence of cheating a university for employment.
 2. Secondly, that even if the appellant had obtained the admission card and would have
appeared in the M.A. examination, no offence of cheating is committed under section
420, of Indian penal code, as the university in this particular case would have not
suffered any harm on its reputation based on the actions of the appellant. And the
assumption that university suffering a harm to its reputation is too remote.

The facts prove that the offence did not went beyond the stage of preparation for committing
the crime of “cheating”, and do not amount to the offence of attempt to cheat. There is a thin
line between the preparation for and an attempt to commit an offence. Attempt to commit an
offence, therefore, can be said to begin when the preparations are complete and the culprit
commences to do something with the intention of committing the offence and which is a step
towards the commission of the offence. The moment he commences to do an act with the
necessary intention, he commences an attempt to commit the offence, which is not the case
here.

Respondent:

 There is no doubt that the appellant made a false statement about himself as being an
graduate and a teacher, in the application he had submitted to the University, he did
deceive the University and his intention was quite clear to make the University give
him permission and deliver to him the admission card which would have enabled him
to sit for the M.A. Examination (English). This card has to be treated as a 'property'.
The appellant would therefore have committed the offence of 'cheating' if the
admission card had not been withdrawn due to certain information reaching the
University. Therefore, it is submitted that the appellant is liable for the offence of
attempt.

Judgement

There is nothing denying the fact that the act which was really done by the appellant, was an
attempt to commit a crime and that he had not reached the limit of preparation. In its
decision, the Supreme Court observed that the preparation was complete at the time when the
application was prepared to be sent to the university and at the moment, when it was sent to
the University, he entered into the sphere of committing the offences with the university. The
appellant succeeded in cheating to the university and he also succeeded to inspire the
university to send the permission card. But he was not able to get the admit card and to
appear in the examination because something had been done which was out of his control
because someone else had informed the university that he was neither graduate nor he was
the teacher. Hence, the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court saying that the appellant
had justly punished by the additional sessions judge under section 420 and 511 of IPC.

Learning outcome

In this case analysis I learnt about the different between the stages of preparation of a crime
and an attempt to commit it. About section 420 and section 511 (residuary section to define
attempt) of Indian penal code. There is very thin line between a preparation for an offence
and to actually commit it. The interpretation by the court is very important in such cases. The
permission card, sent by the university to appear in the examination in the present case is
considered as a property of the university when an attempt is made to commit a crime of
cheating. Further I learnt about that a person commits a crime:-

 When he causes certain offence to be committed.

 When he has completed the preparation.
 When in such attempt he does any act towards the commission of the offences, that
act may not be the final act but it is an act in the way of committing the offences.

18bal082

Akshat mishra