Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar (AIR 1961 SC 1698): Case Summary

The case of Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar 1961 deals with the interpretation of cheating and attempt under the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner was accused of using forged documents to secure permission to appear for a university examination. The matter raised important questions regarding the scope of "cheating" and the stage at which a criminal attempt is constituted. It also explored whether an admission card could be regarded as “property” under criminal law and also differentiated between ‘Preparation’ and ‘Attempt.’ Explore other important Landmark Judgements.

Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar: Introduction

The Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar 1961 is a landmark Supreme Court decision that analysed the legal implications of misrepresentation and cheating under the Indian Penal Code. The case revolved around Abhayanand Mishra who falsely represented himself to Patna University which led to his conviction under Sections 420 and 511 of the IPC for attempting to cheat. The decision of the Supreme Court on 24th April, 1961 explained the interpretation of ‘property’ in the context of an admission card and reinforced key principles related to cheating and attempted offences.

Download Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar PDF

The Abhayanand Mishra vs State of Bihar revolves around the Appellant, Abhayanand Mishra who misrepresented himself to Patna University. The following are the brief facts of the case of Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar -

Application to Patna University

The Appellant, Abhayanand Mishra applied to Patna University for permission to appear in the 1954 M.A. Examination in English as a private candidate. He represented himself as a graduate who had obtained his B.A. degree in 1951 and claimed to be teaching at a school.

Belief and Action of the University

Based on the representations of Abhayanand, the University authorities believed his statements and granted him the necessary permission. After the payment of requisite fees and submission of copies of his photograph, the University issued an admission card which was dispatched to the headmaster of the school.

Discovery of Misrepresentation

The University received information that led to an investigation. It was revealed that the Appellant Abhayanand Mishra was neither a graduate nor a teacher as he had claimed. Additionally, the certificates provided by Mishra for admission were forged. It was also discovered that he had been debarred from taking any university examination for years due to engaging in corrupt practices during a previous examination.

Prosecution and Conviction under 420/511 IPC

Abhayanand Mishra was prosecuted and convicted under Section 420 r/w Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for attempting to cheat the university through false representations. Section 420 and Section 511 of the Indian Penal code deals with cheating and attempting to commit crime.

Appeal in the Patna High Court

The Appellant Abhayanand Mishra approached the Patna High Court against the decision of the Trial Court. However, the Patna High Court dismissed his appeal.

Appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136

Aggrieved by the decision of the Patna High Court, the Appellant Abhayanand Mishra filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar: Contentions of the Appellant

The Appellant in Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar contended that his conviction was not justified as the admission card had no pecuniary value. Thus, it did not qualify as ‘property’ under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. Mishra also contended that his actions did not go beyond mere preparation and therefore, the offence of cheating is not constituted.

Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar: Contentions of the Respondent

The Prosecution representing the State of Bihar in Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar argued as follows:

• Forensic and Testimonial Proof: Forensic analysis and witness testimonies confirmed that the signatures and handwriting on the application matched those of the appellant.
• Beyond Preliminary Steps: Submitting the application along with the payment of fees amounted to an active attempt to deceive the university.
• Admission Card as Valuable Property: Receiving the admission card grants the right to appear in the examination, thereby giving it tangible value.

Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar: Issue addressed

The following issues were addressed in Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar case were- 

• Whether the conviction of the Appellant under Section 420 and Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was justified?
• The Apex Court also examined whether an admission card can be considered as a ‘Property’?

In the Abhayanand Misrepresentation case Section 420 and Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code played a significant role. The following are the legal analysis of these provisions -

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 420 of IPC defines cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It states that any individual who 

• cheats
• dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or 
• to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or 
• anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security

In such a case he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to-

• 7 years
• Fine

In Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar Section 420 was invoked because the Appellant was accused of:

• Deceiving the examination authorities by impersonating a candidate or facilitating impersonation.
• Dishonestly inducing the authorities to issue or act upon an examination admission card, which allowed an impostor to appear in place of the genuine candidate.

Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 511 of IPC deals with punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with life imprisonment or other imprisonment. It encompasses attempts to commit offences that are punishable with life imprisonment or any other imprisonment. It is applicable when a person while attempting such an offence performs an act towards the commission of that offence.

Section 511 comes into play when the Code does not have a specific provision for the punishment of an attempt to commit a particular offence.

The punishment under this section may be-

• Up to half the term of the imprisonment prescribed for the offence or
• In cases where the offence is punishable by life imprisonment, up to half the duration of life imprisonment or
• A fine as prescribed for the offence or 
• Both imprisonment and fine

Section 511 was important in Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar because:

• The cheating was not fully consummated—the fraudulent act was detected before the exam was completed.
• Since no final wrongful gain or delivery of property was completed, the offence of cheating was not accomplished in full.

Thus, the Appellant was charged with an attempt to cheat.

Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar: Judgment and Impact

The Supreme Court in the Abhayanand Mishra misrepresentation case clarified the application of Section 420 (cheating) and Section 511 (attempt to commit an offence) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

The Court observed that the actions of the Appellant including preparing and dispatching an application to Patna University constituted preparation for committing the offence of cheating. Upon dispatching the application, the Appellant entered the realm of attempting to cheat under Section 420 of IPC.

The Court in Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar explained that under Section 511 of the IPC an individual is deemed to have attempted to commit an offence-

• when they intend to commit it
• make preparations and 
• perform an act towards its commission

The Court highlighted that the act does not have to be the final step but must occur during the process of attempting the crime.

Despite successfully deceiving the University into issuing the admission card, the ability of the Appellant to sit for the examination was blocked when the University received information about the forged documents which led to the withdrawal of the card. 

The Court in Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar also held that the admission card was ‘property’ under Section 420 IPC as it had pecuniary value and could be converted into a valuable security.

Thus, the Court in Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar confirmed that the conviction of the Appellant under Section 420 and Section 511 of the IPC was rightly done. The appeal was dismissed.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court in Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar upheld the conviction of the Appellant under Section 420 and Section 511 of the IPC for attempting to cheat by submitting forged documents to Patna University. The Court also held that the admission card issued by the University was considered ‘property’ under Section 420 because of its pecuniary value. The decision in Abhayanand Case reinforced the key legal principles on cheating and attempt to commit an offence. The Court affirmed the conviction of Mishra and the appeal was dismissed.