Say the ratio out loud before you open Reasoning — recalling it unprompted is exactly what the exam pays for.
Why it matters
Attempt is one of Unit 5's three inchoate offences, and its hardest line — where preparation ends and attempt begins — is drawn by this case. Pair it with Malkiat Singh and Mohd. Yakub on the same question; Abhayanand supplies the crisp "he entered the realm of attempt" formula every answer wants.
Facts
Abhayanand Mishra applied to Patna University for permission to sit the 1954 M.A. English examination as a private candidate, falsely representing that he was a graduate who had obtained his B.A. in 1951 and had been teaching. On the strength of the false application and forged supporting certificates, the University despatched him an admission card. The fraud was discovered before the examination; he never sat it. He was convicted of attempting to cheat (IPC s. 420 read with IPC s. 511).
Issues
- Was the conduct mere preparation (not punishable) or an attempt (punishable)?
- Was the admission card "property" capable of being obtained by cheating?
Held
Conviction affirmed. On the boundary, the Court's formula: gathering the false certificates and writing out the application was preparation, but "the moment he despatched it, he entered the realm of attempting to commit the offence of cheating." An attempt begins where preparation ends and the accused does an act towards the commission of the offence — the last stage before completion is not required. On property, the Court held the admission card was property the accused sought to obtain by deception, so the cheating attempt was complete in law even though he never took the examination.
Ratio
Attempt begins with the first act done towards commission after preparation is complete — it need not be the penultimate act. Despatching the deceptive application was such an act; the offence was complete on despatch, regardless of interception. The case also confirms that an intangible document of value (an admission card, a permission) is "property" for cheating.
Under the BNS
Cheating is now s. 318 and the general law of attempt s. 62 (Unit 5). The reasoning is unchanged; note the cross-check with Malkiat Singh v State of Punjab (locus poenitentiae — room to repent means preparation only) and State of Maharashtra v Mohd. Yakub (the act need not be the penultimate one). Cite the trio together on the preparation/attempt question.
In the app
The analysis continues in the app with Exam use — how to write this case into an answer and Viva use — how to speak to it in a viva, plus every card and question built on this case.