ABHAYANAND MISHRA vs STATE OF BIHAR Case Summary 1961 SC

ABHAYANAND MISHRA vs STATE OF BIHAR Case Summary 1961 SC

Abhayanand Mishra vs State of Bihar case states that mere intention cannot be a sufficient ground to prove a person guilty. To convict a person than completion of the offence is a must. Section 420 states that punishment for cheating and dishonestly and section 511 states that the punishment for attempting an offence in which the punishment is imprisonment for life or other.

COURT:

Supreme Court of India

CITATION:

AIR 1961 SC 1698

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED ON:

April 24th, 1961

BENCH:

Hon’ble Justice Raghubar Dayal, Hon’ble Justice K. Subbarao

RELEVANT ACT AND SECTION:

  1. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which, states the punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property.
  2. Section 511of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which states the punishment for attempting the offence punishable with life imprisonment or other imprisonment.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

  1. Abhayanand Mishra wanted to pursue M.A. (English) from Patna University as a private candidate.
  2. He attached the forged documents with his application that proves that he has done his graduation in the year 1951 and also a teacher at a school.
  3. University comes to know that the document attached by the candidate were forged as he was neither a graduate nor a teacher and as a result, University filed a case under section 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

ISSUES FRAMED:

Abhayanand Mishra contended that since he has not given the examination yet, so he has committed no offences, this is just a part of preparation. So the issue raised was that whether it was just a preparation or an attempt at cheating?

JUDGEMENT:

Court held that Petitioner has already done his preparation when he has gone through the application process, the moment he dispatched the documents is an attempt. Therefore, the petitioner will be held liable for an attempt at cheating.

CASES REFERRED:

  1. Queen Empress v. Soshi Bhushan, (1899) I.L.R 12 Mad. 151
  2. Queen Empress v. Appasami (1893) I.L.R 15 All. 210
  3. Ragina v. Padala Venkatasami (1881)
  4. R. v. Cheeseman (1862)

CONCLUSION:

The court delivered judgement in the respondent’s favor. It concluded that since the appellant has already completed his application process, which shows that an attempt has already been made, that’s why the appellant will be held liable under section 420 read with section 511.

Found Abhayanand Mishra case summary useful? Check out other landmark IPC Case summaries here >>> IPC Case Summaries.

Check out our YouTube Channel for free legal videos >>> LAW PLANET YT

Share on print
Print PDF
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Shubham Garg

Shubham Garg

See Legal News, Judgements, Jobs Monthwise

Recent Posts

About Us

Law Planet is specially created for law enthusiasts. We provide courses for various law exams. We also write about law to increase legal awareness amongst common citizens.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG!