Criminal Law

Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar

AIR 1961 SC 1698

Facts

Abhayanand Mishra applied to Patna University for permission to appear as a private candidate in an M.A. examination.
To satisfy the eligibility requirements, he represented that:
he was already a graduate;
he had worked as a teacher;
he possessed the necessary academic qualifications.
These representations were false.
He submitted forged or fabricated certificates in support of the application.
On the strength of those documents, the University accepted his application and issued an admission card.
Before he could sit for the examination, the falsehood was discovered.
He was prosecuted for attempting to cheat the University under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC.
He argued that he had merely made preparations and that the offence could not amount to an attempt until he actually appeared in the examination or received the intended benefit.

Whether submitting a fraudulent application and forged documents constituted an attempt to cheat.
Whether attempt requires performance of the last or penultimate act.
At what point preparation ends and execution of the offence begins.

A person attempts an offence when:
he intends to commit that offence;
he completes the necessary preparation;
he performs an act toward its commission.
The act need not be the final or penultimate act.
It must occur during the course of committing the offence and have a sufficiently direct connection with the intended result.
Preparation consists of arranging the necessary means.
Attempt begins when the accused applies those means to the actual victim or transaction.
For cheating, deception communicated to the person or institution intended to be deceived may mark the commencement of attempt.

Mishra’s conduct went well beyond collecting blank forms or preparing false certificates.
He formally submitted the application to the University.
The deceptive statements were directly communicated to the institution that he intended to deceive.
The forged certificates were used as instruments to obtain permission to sit for the examination.
The University acted on the deception by processing the application and issuing an admission card.
Therefore:
the proposed victim had been approached;
the deception had been practised;
the machinery for obtaining the dishonest benefit had been activated.
It was unnecessary for Mishra to physically enter the examination hall before liability arose.
Sitting in the examination was one further stage, but not the first legally relevant act toward cheating.
The offence failed because the falsehood was discovered, not because Mishra voluntarily stopped before execution.
The Court rejected the idea that only the last possible act constitutes attempt.
Such an approach would allow offenders to escape liability despite having already placed a fraudulent plan into operation.
The acts must be assessed as part of the whole criminal design.
Once Mishra sent the false application and induced the University to act, he had crossed the line from preparation into attempt.
The fact that the ultimate academic advantage had not yet been obtained affected completion, not attempt liability.

The Supreme Court upheld Mishra’s conviction for attempting to cheat.
Submission of the fraudulent application and false certificates constituted acts toward commission of the offence.
Attempt did not require him to perform the final act of actually sitting in the examination.
Use this case for: an attempt is complete when the accused, after preparation, directly puts the criminal design into operation; the final act need not be performed.