An attempt to commit an offense under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code requires an act towards the commission of the offense, which need not be the penultimate act but must be a step in the course of committing the offense.

Judgment

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : This appeal, by special leave, is against the order of the High Court at Patna dismissing the appellant s appeal against his conviction under S. 420, read with S. 511, of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The appellant 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. The appellant furnished these and on April 9, 1954, proper admission card for him was despatched to the Head-master of the School.

3. 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 and that in fact he had been debarred from taking any University examination for a certain number of years on account of his having committed corrupt practice at a University examination. In consequence, the matter was reported to the police which, on investigation, prosecuted the appellant.

4. The appellant was acquitted of the charge of forging those certificates, but was convicted of the offence of attempting to cheat inasmuch as he, by false representations, deceived the University and induced the authorities to issue the admission card, which ,if the fraud had not been detected, would have been ultimately delivered to the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two contentions. The first is that the facts found did not amount to the appellant s committing an attempt to cheat the University but amounted just to his making preparations to cheat the University. The second is that even if the appellant had obtained the admission card and appeared at the M. A. Examination, no offence of cheating under S. 420 I. P.C., would have been committed as the University would not have suffered any harm to its reputation. The idea of the University suffering in reputation is too remote.

6. The offence of cheating is defined in S. 415, I. P.C., which reads:

"whoever, by deceiving any person, 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, or 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, is said to cheat .

Explanation-A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."

The appellant would therefore have cheated the University if he had (i) deceived the University;(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly induced the University to deliver any property to him or (iii) had intentionally induced the University to permit him to sit at the M. A. Examination which it would not have done if it was not so deceived and the giving of such permission by the University caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the University in reputation. 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 wi