Case – Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, 1961
Case Summary
| Citation | Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, 1961 |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | Abhayanand Mishra applied to the Patna University for permission to appear at the 1954 M. A. Examination in English as a private candidate, representing that he was a graduate having obtained his B.A. Degree in 1951 and that he had been teaching in a certain school. In support of his application, he attached certain certificates purporting to be from the Headmaster of the School, and the Inspector of Schools. The University authorities accepted the appellant’s statements and gave permission and wrote to him asking for the remission of the fees and two copies of his photograph. Proper admission card for him was dispatched to the Headmaster of the School. Information reached the University about the appellant’s being not a graduate and being not a teacher. Inquiries were made and it was found that the certificates attached to the application were forged, that the appellant was not a graduate and was not a teacher. |
| Issues | Whether acts done be Abhayanand Mishra only amount to preparation, or he had crossed stage of attempt? |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | Supreme Court said that we may summarize our views about the construction of s. 511, Indian Penal Code, thus a person commits the offence of attempt to commit a particular offence when: (i) he intends to commit that particular offence; and (ii) he, having made preparations and with the intention to commit the offence, does an act towards its commission; such an act need not be the penultimate act towards the commission of that offence but must be an act during the course of committing that offence penultimate act means final act. The Court held that preparation was complete when the accused prepared the application for submission to the university and that the moment, he had dispatched. There are following essential ingredient of section 415: (1) Deception- There must be deception of any person. (2) Property – fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, (3) Injury (To do or omit to do) – intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. |
| Judgement | Supreme Court said, There is no doubt that the appellant, by making false statements about his being a graduate and a teacher, in the applications he had submitted to the University, did deceive the University and that his intention was 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. This card is “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. He was convicted for Section 420 read with Section 511 on the ground that he had crossed stage of preparation for committing offence of cheating. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
To do
