IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AIR 1961 SC 1698
Petitioner
Abhayanand Mishra
Respondent
The State of Bihar
Date of Judgement
24 April, 1961
Bench
Hon’ble Justice Raghubar Dayal
Background:
The appellant wanted to get enrolled himself in Patna university to give M.A. examination but he misrepresented that he has a B.A. degree and currently he had been working as a teacher in a school. The university after giving him admission got to know that he forged those documents which he submitted and he had not been working as a teacher anywhere. The university brought the charges against the appellant.
Statues and Provisions of Law involved:
Statue – Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Provisions Involved – Section 420 and Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Brief Facts:
The appealing party applied to the Patna University in order to seek permission to sit at the 1954 M. A. exam in English as a private candidate. Informing that he was an alumnus having gotten his B.A. Degree in 1951 and that he had been working as a teacher in a specific school. On the side of his application, he appended certain authentications indicating to be from the Headmaster of the School, and the Inspector of Schools. The University specialists acknowledged the litigant’s announcements and gave authorization and kept in touch with him requesting the reduction of the charges and two duplicates of his photo. The litigant outfitted these and on April 9, 1954, an appropriate confirmation card for him was dispatched to the Headmaster of the School.
Data arrived at the University about the appealing party’s being not alumnus and is not a teacher. Requests were made and it was discovered that the endorsements appended to the application were false and fabricated, that the appealing party was not an alumnus and was not an instructor and that indeed, he had been suspended from taking any University exam for a specific number of years because of his having submitted degenerate practice at a University assessment. As a result, the issue was accounted for to the police who, on the examination, took legal action against the litigant. The appealing party was vindicated of the charge of manufacturing those declarations however was sentenced for the offense of endeavoring to cheat in light of the fact that he, by bogus portrayals, beguiled the University and prompted the specialists to give the affirmation card, which, if the extortion had not been identified, would have been eventually conveyed to the litigant. [i]
Issues Raised:
Learned Counsel raised the following issues or contentions for the appellant.
- The first is that the realities found didn’t add up to the appealing party’s committing an attempt to cheat/swindle the University yet measured just to his creation arrangements to deceive the University.
- The second is that regardless of whether the appealing party had acquired the confirmation card and showed up at the M. A. Assessment, no offense of cheating under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, would have been submitted as the University, would not have endured any mischief to its unsavory reputation. The possibility of the University going through disrepute is excessively remote.
- The realities demonstrated don’t go past the phase of reparation for the commission of the offense of ‘cheating’ and don’t make out the offense of attempting to cheat.
Arguments Advanced:
Appellant’s Contentions:
The contention on the litigant’s part was that on the facts found the conviction was unfeasible on the grounds (1) that the confirmation card had no monetary worth and was accordingly not property under Section 415, and (2) that, regardless, the means taken by him didn’t go past the phase of the groundwork for the commission of the offense of cheating and didn’t, along these lines, make out the offense of making an effort to deceive or cheat.
Respondent’s Contention:
The litigant cheated the University on the off chance that he had (I) misdirected the University; (ii) falsely or unscrupulously instigated the University to convey any property to him; or (iii) had deliberately actuated the University to allow him to sit at the M.A. Assessment which it would not have done on the off chance that it was not all that misled and the giving of such consent by the University caused or was probably going to make harm or damage to the University repute. There is no uncertainty that the litigant, by offering bogus expressions about his being an alumnus and an instructor, in the applications he had submitted to the University, deceived the University and that his goal was to make the University give him to consent and convey to him the confirmation card which would have empowered him to sit for the M.A. evaluation or examination.
Judgment:
In the present case, the litigant expected to bamboozle the University and acquire the important consent and the confirmation card and, not just sent an application for authorization to sit at the University assessment yet, in addition, tailed it up, on getting the vital authorization, by dispatching the vital charges and sending the duplicates of his photo, on the receipt of which the University issued the affirmation card. There is in this manner scarcely any extension for saying that what the litigant had done didn’t add up to his trying to commit the offense and had not gone past the phase of arrangement. The readiness was finished when he had arranged the application with the end goal of accommodation to the University. The minute he dispatched it, he entered the domain of attempting to commit the offense of ‘cheating’. He succeeded in misleading the University and actuating it to issue the concede card. He just neglected to get it and sit for the assessment since something outside his ability to control occurred in light of the fact that the University was educated about his being neither alumni nor an educator.
Thusly, it was held that the appealing party has been properly indicted for the offense under s. 420, read with s. 511, Indian Penal Code, and as needs be to expel the intrigue. Appeal rejected.
Ratio Decidendi:
An individual who commits the offense of attempt to commit a specific offense’ when (I) he plans to commit that specific offense; and (ii) he, having made arrangements and with the expectation to commit the offense, does a demonstration towards its bonus; such a demonstration need not be the penultimate demonstration towards the commission of that offense, however, should be a demonstration throughout committing that offense. The court followed the case of Queen v. Paterson, Regina v. Padala Venkatasami, and Reg. v. Chessman and interpreted the construction of section 511 and attempt under the Indian Penal Code differently.
Rationale in Arriving at the Judgment:
An attempt to perpetuate wrongdoing is a demonstration finished to carry out that wrongdoing and shaping piece of a progression of acts that would establish its genuine commission if it was not intruded. To put the issue unexpectedly, an attempt is a demonstration done to some extent execution of a criminal structure, adding up to more than insignificant readiness, yet missing the mark concerning genuine culmination, and, having, aside from the inability to consummate, every one of the components of the substantive wrongdoing; at the end of the day, and attempt comprises in the goal to perpetuate wrongdoing, joined with the doing of some demonstration adjusted to, however missing the mark regarding, its real bonus; it might thus be characterized as that which if not forestalled would have brought about the full fulfillment of the demonstration committed. [ii]
Conclusion:
The attempts once started and a criminal act has done incompatibility of it towards the commission of that act attempted, doesn’t stop to be a criminal attempt, as per my view, due to the individual carrying out the offense does or may atone before the attempt is finished. I can’t help suspecting that segment (s. 511) utilizes the word ‘attempt’ in an exceptionally enormous sense; simply can’t help thinking that such an attempt might be comprised of a progression of acts and that any of those acts done towards the commission of the offense, that is itself capable to amount punishment, and however the act doesn’t utilize the words, it can amount to punishment only as an attempt. It doesn’t state that the last act which would shape the last piece of an attempt in the bigger sense is the main act culpable under the area. It says explicitly that whosoever in such an attempt, clearly utilizing the word in the bigger sense, does any act/ demonstration and so forth will be culpable. The term ‘any act/ demonstration’ avoids the idea that the last act/demonstration falls short of genuine commission is solely punish.
Edited by Parul Soni
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
Reference:
[i] Indiankanoon.org, Abhayananda Mishra v. State Of Bihar, 1961 AIR 1698, 1962 SCR (2) 241,(January 22, 2020, 3:32 pm) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/487780/.
[ii] Delhi Law Academy, Abhayananda Mishra v. State of Bihar (SC 1962), (January 22, 2020, 4:30 pm) https://www.delhilawacademy.com/abhayanand-mishra-v state – of- bihar.
