Abhayanand Mishra v The State of Bihar (AIR 1961 SC 1698)

The case of Abhayanand Mishra v The State of Bihar (AIR 1961 SC 1698) is a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India that provided clarity on the distinction between preparation and attempt in criminal law under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), particularly concerning Sections 420 (Cheating) and 511 (Attempt to Commit an Offence). The Supreme Court held that the act of submitting a fraudulent application to an authority with the intention of cheating constitutes an attempt, even if the ultimate goal was not achieved due to external intervention.

This case is significant in establishing when preparation ends and an attempt begins, setting a precedent for cases involving fraudulent misrepresentation, deception, and cheating.

Facts of Abhayanand Mishra v The State of Bihar

The appellant, Abhayanand Mishra, applied to appear for the M.A. (English) examination at Patna University as a private candidate in 1954. In his application, he falsely represented that:

1. He had obtained a B.A. degree in 1951.
2. He was employed as a teacher at a school.
3. He attached forged certificates from the Headmaster of the school and the Inspector of Schools in support of his claims.

Based on this false representation, the University accepted his application and requested him to submit the examination fees and photographs. The University then issued an admission card, which was sent to the Headmaster of the school.

However, before he could sit for the examination, the University was informed that:

• The appellant was neither a graduate nor a teacher.
• The certificates submitted were forged.
• He had previously been debarred from appearing in any university examinations due to involvement in corrupt practices.

Upon discovering this, the University revoked his admission and lodged a police complaint. Following an investigation, he was prosecuted and convicted under Section 420 (cheating) read with Section 511 (attempting to cheat) of the IPC.

The appellant challenged his conviction in the Patna High Court, but his appeal was dismissed. He then filed an appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Issues Before the Court

The Supreme Court in Abhayanand Mishra v The State of Bihar considered the following issues:

• Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 420 and 511 of IPC was justified?
• Whether the submission of a fraudulent application constituted an attempt to cheat or mere preparation?
• Whether an admission card qualifies as “property” under Section 415 of IPC?

Contentions of the Parties

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant’s counsel made the following arguments:

• Lack of Pecuniary Value: The admission card issued to him had no monetary or pecuniary value, and therefore, it could not be considered property under Section 415 of IPC.
• Mere Preparation: His act of submitting the fraudulent application was only preparatory, and an attempt to commit the offence requires more direct action.
• University’s Reputation Not Harmed: Even if he had appeared for the exam, it would not have caused any damage to the reputation of the university.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Bihar)

The prosecution, representing the State of Bihar, presented the following counterarguments:

• Forensic and Witness Evidence: The signatures and handwriting in the application were forensically analysed and confirmed to be those of the appellant.
• Beyond Mere Preparation: The act of submitting the application and following up by paying the required fees constituted an attempt to cheat the university.
• Admission Card as Property: The issuance of an admission card confers a right to sit in an examination and, therefore, has value.

Observations of the Supreme Court in Abhayanand Mishra v The State of Bihar

The Supreme Court in Abhayanand Mishra v The State of Bihar analysed the case based on the legal distinction between preparation and attempt. The Court ruled:

Distinction Between Preparation and Attempt

The appellant completed preparation when he gathered the forged certificates. The moment he submitted the application, he entered the realm of attempt. The issuance of an admission card due to fraudulent misrepresentation is a direct step toward completing the offence.

Definition of Attempt Under Section 511 IPC

Attempt involves:

1. Intent to commit a particular offence.
2. Having made necessary preparations.
3. Taking an active step toward committing the offence.

The step need not be the final act, but must be in the process of committing the offence.

Admission Card as Property

The admission card has value because it grants the right to take an examination. If the appellant had used it, he would have successfully committed the offence of cheating.

Interruption Does Not Prevent Conviction

The fact that the University discovered the fraud and revoked the admission card before he could take the exam does not absolve him of liability. The crime was prevented by external intervention, but the attempt had already been made.

Abhayanand Mishra versus The State of Bihar Judgement and Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant’s conviction under Sections 420 and 511 IPC. The judgement confirmed:

• The appellant had the intention to deceive the University.
• He had moved beyond preparation and committed an attempt to cheat.
• His acts constituted an offence, as per the legal definitions under Sections 420 and 511 IPC.

Punishment Awarded

• Two years of rigorous imprisonment
• Fine of ₹500 (Failure to pay would result in six months of additional rigorous imprisonment)

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgement in Abhayanand Mishra v The State of Bihar reaffirmed the principle that attempting to cheat is punishable even if the actual deception does not succeed. The decision clarifies that once a person with fraudulent intent takes an overt step toward completing an offence, it qualifies as an attempt under criminal law.

This ruling strengthens legal provisions against fraudulent misrepresentation in academic and professional settings, ensuring that individuals cannot exploit legal loopholes under the guise of mere preparation.