JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - A rule was issued in this case to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the Petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that upon the fact a found in the judgment (that is the judgment of the Appellate Court) the case did not come under sec. 417 read with sec. 511 of the Penal Code or why the sentence should not be modified. Now the facts found are these :--The Petitioner, Godadhar Roy, is a coolie recruiter and the Petitioner Kishori Lal Chatterjee, a clerk in the coolie depot kept by Messrs. Sen & Co.; that Godadhar Roy induced the complainant to come to the coolie depot by promising him domestic service; that Kishori Lal had entered his name in the books of the depot and had written a letter to a coolie contractor in Calcutta offering the complainant as a coolie; that on the same day the Petitioners both persuaded the complainant to go to the Railway Station to fetch a parcel, that at the Station Godadhar Roy bought a Railway ticket for Calcutta for the complainant and tried to get him to enter the train and that he refused to go and gave information to the Police. 2. From the record it appears that proceedings were thereupon taken under sec. 164 of Act VI of 1901 (Assam Labour and Emigration Act) and the Petitioners were convicted of an offence under that section and sentenced to six months' imprisonment each; on appeal the Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and directed a charge to be framed u/s 417 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge was framed under that section and after the witnesses for the prosecution had been recalled and cross-examined with reference to the new charge the Petitioners were again convicted and sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment. 3. On appeal that conviction was set aside by the Sessions Judge and a conviction entered under sec. 417 read with sec. 511 of the Penal Code, for an at tempt to cheat. The new charge upon which the Petitioners were tried stated (omitting merely formal portion) "that Godadhar Roy on or about the 19th day of July 1904 at Midnapore took Rakhal Maiti (the complainant) to the coolie depot of Messrs. 417 read with sec. 511 of the Penal Code, for an at tempt to cheat. The new charge upon which the Petitioners were tried stated (omitting merely formal portion) "that Godadhar Roy on or about the 19th day of July 1904 at Midnapore took Rakhal Maiti (the complainant) to the coolie depot of Messrs. Sen and Co., at Kolgong on promising him domestic service and that Godadhar Roy and Kishori Lal Chatterjee attempted to send him to Calcutta intending to send Rakhal as a coolie to Assam, by deceiving him on the promise of employing him in domestic service, and that his being sent on as a cooiie to Assam was likely to cause him harm in mind and body and that thereby they committed an offence punishable under sec. 417 of the Indian Penal Code." Now in order to bring the case against the Petitioners within the definition of cheating in sec. 415 of the Penal Code it must be shown either that the Petitioners by deceiving the complainant fraudulently or dishonestly induced him to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person should retain any property, or that the Petitioners by deceiving the complainant intentionally induced him to do some act which he would not have done were he not deceived and which act caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to him in body, mind, reputation or property. The present case clearly does not come within the first branch. From the findings in the judgment it is obvious that the object of the Petitioners was to get the complainant to go to Calcutta and that he should be sent from there to Assam as a tea garden coolie. It was never intended that he should be given domestic service. From the beginning he was deceived and the object of the deception was to get him to accompany the Petitioner Godadhar to Calcutta on the belief that he would be employed as a domestic servant. On getting to the Station the complainant suspecting something to be wrong refused to go to Calcutta. Had he allowed himself to be taken there, there is little doubt what would have happened. If the Petitioners had succeeded in their object it seems to me their acts would have come within the second branch of the definition in sec. On getting to the Station the complainant suspecting something to be wrong refused to go to Calcutta. Had he allowed himself to be taken there, there is little doubt what would have happened. If the Petitioners had succeeded in their object it seems to me their acts would have come within the second branch of the definition in sec. 415 of the Penal Code For if on getting to Calcutta he had been treated as a coolie, as it was intended that he should be, it is idle to suppose he would not have suffered in mind. The offence of cheating not being complete it remains to consider whether the acts of the Petitioners amount to an attempt. I consider they do. The bringing of the complainant from Midnapore to the coolie depot at Kolgong upon a false promise, the getting him to the Station on a false pretext and the procuring of a Railway ticket for him and endeavouring to persuade him to go to Calcutta were all done with one object and were parts of the same concerted plan to get him to Assam as a coolie. 4. With regard to the sentences we are of opinion that it is not too severe. 5. I would therefore discharge the rule. 6. The Petitioners must surrender and undergo the remainder of their sentences. Geidt, J. 7. The facts have been so fully set out in the judgment of my learned brother that it is unnecessary to recapitulate them. 8. The question we have to consider is whether on the facts found in the judgment the case comes under sec. 417 read with sec. 511, in other words whether the Petitioners have been rightly convicted of an attempt to cheat. 9. I propose to consider this question under three heads :-- (1) What is it that the Petitioners intended to do ? (2) If the Petitioners had succeeded in carrying out their intention would they have been guilty of cheating ? (3) Does their conduct amount to an attempt of cheating. 10. As regards the first head the findings of the Sessions Court is clear that under a false promise of procuring domestic employment for Rakhal Maiti, the Petitioners intended to induce him to go to Assam where he would be compelled to work as a coolie on a tea estate. 11. 10. As regards the first head the findings of the Sessions Court is clear that under a false promise of procuring domestic employment for Rakhal Maiti, the Petitioners intended to induce him to go to Assam where he would be compelled to work as a coolie on a tea estate. 11. The second and the most important question is whether if the Petitioners had succeeded in carrying out their intention they would have been guilty of cheating. 12. In the definition of cheating in sec. 415 there are set forth two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do In the first place he may be induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property. In order to constitute the offence of cheating the person who induces another to do this class of acts must faudulently or dishonestly induce the persons deceived to do that kind of act. The second class of acts set forth in the section is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In order to constitute the offence of cheating with regard to this class of acts the person who induces another to do them must intentionally induce him to do them. In the first class of cases the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts the inducing must be intentional. It if the latter class with which we are alone concerned in this case, and omitting therefore the words relating to the delivery or retention of property the definition of cheating contained in sec. 415 reads as follows: -- Whoever by deceiving any person intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do 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. 13. As to the deception there is no doubt. Rakhal Maiti was deceived by a promise of domestic service which the Petitioner had no intention of fulfilling. The Petitioners' intention as regards what the complainant was to be induced to do seems to be equally clear. 13. As to the deception there is no doubt. Rakhal Maiti was deceived by a promise of domestic service which the Petitioner had no intention of fulfilling. The Petitioners' intention as regards what the complainant was to be induced to do seems to be equally clear. He was to be induced to go to Assam where he would be compelled to work as a coolie, and that was the object of the deception. If the Petitioners had succeeded they would by deceiving Rakhal Maiti have intentionally induced Rakhal Maiti to go to Assam--an act which he would never have done but for the deception. The act would have been the immediate and direct consequence of the deception. The last point to be considered in connection with the definition is whether the act which by the supposition Rakhal would have been induced to do would have caused or would have been likely to cause damage or harm to Rakhal Maiti in body, mind, reputation or property. On the findings there is no doubt that the answer to this must be in the affirmative. Had Rakhal Maiti been taken to Assam as a coolie, he would indubitably have suffered harm in mind. The mental distress to a person taken off against his will to Assam separated by a long distance from his friends, and ordered to work as a coolie on a tea estate would be very great. 14. I am, therefore, of opinion that if the Petitioners had succeeded in their object, they would have been guilty of cheating within the definition of sec. 415. That a deception by means of a promise which the prisoner never intends to fulfill comes within the mischief of the section is clear from illustration f. & g. In the last place I have to consider whether what the Petitioners did amounts to an attempt. The deception was complete, and under that deception Rakhal Maiti was induced by the Petitioners to go first to a coolie depot and then to the Railway Station, where a ticket for Calcutta was purchased for him. The Petitioners had done all they could towards inducing Rakhal Maiti by means of deception to go to Assam. Their conduct, in my opinion, amounts to an attempt within the meaning of see. 511, Penal Code. The Petitioners had done all they could towards inducing Rakhal Maiti by means of deception to go to Assam. Their conduct, in my opinion, amounts to an attempt within the meaning of see. 511, Penal Code. In my opinion the Petitioners have been rightly convicted and sentenced, and I agree accordingly in discharging this rule.