JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the Petitioner by the Chief Presidency Magistrate should not be set aside. The facts are that the accused arranged a contract for the delivery of goods to the complainant's firm by Messrs. Birkmyre Brothers for whom he had no authority to act. The contract was repudiated by the latter firm as invalid. The complainant's firm pressed their claim under the contract, and instructed a pleader named Srish Babu to write to Messrs. Birkmyre Brothers and demand fulfilment. Then, the accused finding that his fraud in connection with the contract was likely to be discovered went to the pleader Srish Babu, represented himself to be a member of the complainant's firm, which he was not, and instructed him to write a letter in the name of the complainant's firm to Messrs. Birkmyre Brothers stating that the contract which the complainant's firm had entered into had been cancelled. The pleader wrote the letter but before despatching it referred to the complainant's firm and accused's fraud was discovered. 2. The grounds on which we have been asked to set aside the conviction are (1) that the accused has been convicted of attempting to cheat not the complainant but the pleader Srish Babu (2) that the act of the accused did not amount to an attempt at cheating, as it was not likely to harm the pleader in any way. 3. The first of these grounds cannot prevail, because the prosecutor in all criminal cases is the Crown. The Presidency Magistrate is entitled to convict an accused of any offence which the evidence given before him discloses he has committed. The accused was put on his trial for attempting to cheat the pleader. A charge for attempting to cheat the pleader was duly drawn up against him. He pleaded to this charge and had every opportunity afforded him to defend himself against this charge. Then, it would seem to us that his act does amount to an attempt to cheat the pleader. He made a very false representation to him. He caused him to write a letter to Messrs. Birkmyre Brothers which the pleader would not have written if it had not been for the false representation made to him by the accused. Then, it would seem to us that his act does amount to an attempt to cheat the pleader. He made a very false representation to him. He caused him to write a letter to Messrs. Birkmyre Brothers which the pleader would not have written if it had not been for the false representation made to him by the accused. If this fraud had been successful it must necessarily have caused injury to the pleader in mind and reputation. The pleader would certainly have been likely to lose reputation, and perhaps business, if it appeared that he had been negligent and had been readily deceived by the accused. He might also have found himself involved in litigation. We see no reason to interfere. We affirm the conviction. We, however, think the sentence may be commuted into one of fine. We accordingly commute the sentence into one of fine to the extent of Rs. 500 in all, or one month's rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine.