ACT:Criminal Law-Attempt to cheat-Getting admission cardfromUniversity onfalse representation-Preparation to commitoffence and attemptto commit offence, differences--Admission card, if Property-Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of1860), ss. 420, 511.

HEADNOTE:The appellant applied to the Patna University for permissionto appear at the 1954 M. A. Examination in English as aprivate candidate representing that he was a graduate havingobtained his B. A. Degree in 1951 and that he hadbeenteaching in a certain school. Believing his statements theUniversity authorities gave him the necessary permission,and on his remitting the requisite fees and sending copiesof his photograph, as required, a proper admission card forhim was dispatched to the Headmaster of the School. As aresult of certain information received by the University, aninvestigation was made and it was found that the appellantwas neither a graduate nor a teacher as represented by himand that in fact he had been de-barred from taking anyUniversity examination for a certain number of years onaccount of his having committed corrupt practice at aUniversity examination. He was prosecuted and convictedunder s. 420 read with s. 511 of the Indian Penal Code, ofthe offence of attempting to cheat the University by falserepresentations by inducing it to issue the admission card,which if the fraud had not been detected would31242have been ultimatelydelivered to him. The appellantcontended that on the facts foundthe conviction wasunsustainable on the grounds (1) that the admission card hadno pecuniary value and was therefore not property under S.415, and (2) that, in any case, the steps taken by him didnot go beyond the stage of preparation for the commission ofthe offence of cheating and did not therefore make out theoffence of attempting to cheat.Held, that under s. 511 of the Indian Penal Code a personcommits the offence of attempting to commit a particularoffence, when he intends to commit that particular offenceand, having made preparations and with the intention tocommitthat offence, does an act towards its commission;such an act need not be the penultimate acttowards thecommission ofthat offence but must be an act during thecourse of committing such offence. It is not necessary forthe offence under s. 511 that the transaction commenced mustend in the crime or offence, if not interrupted.The observations to the contrary in The Queenv. RamsarunChowbey, (1872) 4 N. W. P. 46, In the matter of the Petitionof Raisat Ali, (1881) I.L.R. 7 Cal. 352 and In re AmritaBazar PatrikaPress Ltd., (1920) I.L.R. 47 Cal. 190, notapproved.In the matter of the Petition of R. MacCrea, (1893) I.L.R.15 All. 173, approved.In reT. Munirathnan Reddi, A.I.R. 1955 And. Prad.118,explained.Held, further that an admission card issued by the Univer-sity for appearing at the Examination held by it, though ithas no pecuniary value, has immense value to the candidateand is property within the meaning Of S. 415 Of the IndianPenal Code.Queen Empressv. Appasami, (1899) I.L.R. 12 Mad. 151 andQueen Empress v. Soski Bhusan, (1893) I.L.R. 15 All.210,relied On.In the present case, the preparation was complete when theappellant had prepared the application for the purpose ofsubmission to the University, and the moment he despatchedit, he entered the realm of attempting to commit the offenceof cheating. Accordingly, the appellant was rightlyconvicted of the offence under s. 420 read with S. 511 ofthe Indian Penal Code.