A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai v. State of Bombay [1960 AIR 1119, 1960 SCR (3) 554], upheld a conviction for an attempt to cheat under Section 420 read with Sections 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Court categorically held that an attempt to cheat does not require the actual deception of the intended victim. Even if the complainant disbelieves the accused’s misrepresentation and merely pretends belief to trap the accused, the act still amounts to an attempt. This judgment is pivotal in Indian criminal jurisprudence for clarifying the legal contours distinguishing “preparation” from “attempt” under Section 511 IPC. The ruling further affirms that once essential elements like false representation and parting with property are present, the accused’s conduct qualifies as an “attempt” under criminal law. The judgment carries enduring relevance, especially in dealing with economic offences involving fraud and impersonation.

Keywords: Attempt to cheat, Section 420 IPC, Section 511 IPC, criminal attempt, misrepresentation, preparation vs attempt, intent to deceive.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai v. The State of Bombay

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1955

iii) Judgement Date: April 19, 1960

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Justice Jaffer Imam and Justice A.K. Sarkar

vi) Author: Justice A.K. Sarkar

vii) Citation: AIR 1960 SC 1119, 1960 SCR (3) 554

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 420, 511, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Law of Evidence, White Collar Crimes

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The ruling in Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai pivots on the distinction between criminal “preparation” and actionable “attempt” within the Indian Penal framework. The appellant and two others had approached individuals with the false claim that they could duplicate currency. Though the targeted complainants did not believe the representation and coordinated with police to entrap the accused, the Supreme Court affirmed that the act constituted an attempt to cheat under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC. This case becomes a touchstone in understanding the requisite mental intent (mens rea) and physical act (actus reus) necessary to establish an attempt, particularly in white-collar crime scenarios. It also solidifies jurisprudential clarity on how law punishes intent-driven conduct even if the deception fails due to external preventive factors like police intervention or lack of actual belief in the misrepresentation[1].

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Three accused, including Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai, approached a person named Ramanlal claiming to possess the power to duplicate currency notes. The third accused convinced Ramanlal that the other two were proficient in counterfeiting and could help him double his money. Ramanlal, suspicious of their claims, confided in his friend Champaklal. Together, they devised a plan to trap the accused. Champaklal pretended to agree to invest ₹20,000 for duplication. On the fixed date, the police were stationed covertly at Ramanlal’s house.

When the accused arrived, they performed a staged “duplication” ritual using blank papers and bottles. The appellant asked Champaklal for money. Champaklal handed over two ₹100 notes as a decoy. Upon receiving the notes, the pre-arranged police team apprehended the accused. They were prosecuted for attempting to cheat and convicted by a Magistrate under Sections 420, 511, and 34 IPC. The Sessions Court acquitted them, but the High Court reversed that acquittal. The appellant challenged the High Court’s ruling before the Supreme Court[2].

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the accused committed an attempt to cheat under Section 420 read with Section 511 of IPC, despite the complainant not being actually deceived?

ii) Whether the act amounted merely to preparation or advanced to an attempt punishable under criminal law?

iii) Whether the absence of belief in the misrepresentation by the complainant negates the offence of attempt to cheat?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

The defence contended that there was no attempt to cheat Champaklal because no representation had been made directly to him. They argued that the lack of a direct communication from the appellant to Champaklal implied no misrepresentation occurred. Further, they asserted that since Champaklal did not believe the accused’s claims and had merely feigned interest to help the police, the offence of cheating could not materialise in law.

The defence further distinguished “attempt” from “preparation” by asserting that the accused had only prepared to commit an offence but had not taken sufficient action constituting an attempt. Since no actual monetary gain or completed deception occurred, they claimed it fell short of criminal attempt under Section 511 IPC.

They also relied on the principle that to be convicted under Section 420, the complainant must be deceived and must part with property as a consequence of that deception. Since the complainant’s parting with money was under a plan to trap the accused, there was no causal link between deception and the act of delivering the money[3].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The State countered that the act of misrepresenting the ability to duplicate currency notes itself constituted a material misrepresentation under Section 420 IPC. Moreover, the accused not only made false claims but also induced the complainant to part with money, even if only as a ruse. These acts fulfill the criteria of attempt under Section 511 IPC.

They submitted that the legal test for attempt does not require actual deception or success. Instead, the intention to deceive, coupled with overt acts in furtherance of that intention—such as collecting money and performing a sham ritual—are sufficient. They emphasized that both misrepresentation and delivery of property had occurred, satisfying essential elements of the offence.

The State cited the Calcutta High Court’s ruling in The Government of Bengal v. Umesh Chunder Mitter, ILR (1889) 16 Cal 330, which observed that “A man may attempt to cheat, although the person he attempts to cheat is forewarned, and is therefore not cheated.” This case became central to the Supreme Court’s reasoning as well[4].

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
ii) Section 511, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Covers attempts to commit offences punishable with imprisonment.
iii) Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Provides for joint liability where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held that an attempt to cheat was established by the combination of false representation and parting of money, even if the complainant never believed the representation. The Court noted that misrepresentation and inducement occurred, and the accused received the currency notes, which fulfills the criteria for attempt under Section 511 IPC. The judges reaffirmed that the absence of actual deception is immaterial where the intention and overt acts aimed at deception exist.

The Court emphasized that the law punishes the attempt and not merely successful execution. The act of receiving money based on misrepresentation crossed the threshold from “preparation” into “attempt”. The making of a false representation and the inducement of property transfer satisfy both the mental and physical components of an attempted offence[5].

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court observed that “the fact that the complainant was not actually deceived and only pretended to be misled in order to entrap the accused does not detract from the fact that an attempt to cheat was made.” This obiter served to clarify that the success or failure of deception is not the touchstone for attempt liability under Section 511 IPC.

c. GUIDELINES 

• A person can be convicted for attempt to cheat even if the victim is not actually deceived.

• What matters is the intent to deceive and the acts done in furtherance of that intent.

• Preparation becomes attempt when the act enters execution stage with concrete steps taken.

• Entrapment or the victim’s feigned belief does not exculpate the offender.

• Success in deception is not a prerequisite for liability under Section 511 IPC.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment reaffirms the principle that Indian criminal law focuses on the intention and acts rather than merely the consequences when assessing attempts. The decision bridges a critical gap in the interpretation of Section 511 IPC, making it clear that criminal liability attaches even when the victim is part of a trap. It recognizes the sophistication of modern economic crimes where entrapment may be a necessary investigative tool. In upholding the conviction, the Court also disincentivizes fraudulent misrepresentation by establishing that “unsuccessful deception” is still punishable when it involves overt steps. The case is now a cornerstone for prosecutions involving attempted cheating, cyber frauds, and economic offences involving pretended services or fake inducements.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

[1] The Government of Bengal v. Umesh Chunder Mitter, ILR (1889) 16 Cal 330
[2] Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 1119, 1960 SCR (3) 554

b. Important Statutes Referred:

[3] Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Indian Kanoon
[4] Section 511, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Indian Kanoon
[5] Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Indian Kanoon