JUDGMENT Zia-ul-Hasan and Bennett JJ. 1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against the acquittal of a man named Raghunath alias Ram Singh on a charge u/s 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Raghunath alias Ram Singh was prosecuted with another man named Sagar u/s 420/511/109 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of a Special Magistrate of the First Class. Sagar was discharged, while Raghunath was charged u/s 420 read with Section 511 and acquitted. The charge against Raghunath was as follows: That you on the 18th and night between I0th and 20th day of September, 1939, at Nawabganj P. S. Kotwali attempted to commit cheating and in such attempt did a certain act towards the commission of the said offence i.e. you misrepresented to Tbakur Jagmohan Singh that you could manufacture notes and double them in number and you put up a farce show of the process of multiplying notes and removed the bundle and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 420/5.1 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The facts of the case are hardly in dispute. The allegations of the prosecution were denied altogether by the accused, but the Magistrate acquitted him purely on the ground that the facts alleged did not constitute the offence charged, and the learned Counsel for the accused has argued in this Court only on the legal aspect of the case without attempting to dispute the facts. 4. According to the prosecution story a Sub-Inspector of police named Thakur Jagmohan Singh received information on the 18th September 1939, that two persons who were staying at a Dharmshala at Nawabganj near Barabanki were giving out that they could double Government Currency notes. The Sub-Inspector visited the Dharmshala in the guise of a Seth and had a talk with Raghunath who told him that he could doable any Government currency note given to him, and would be prepared to share with Thakur Jagmohan Singh the profits received from such notes. It was arranged that Thakur Jagmohan Singh should bring notes for this purpose the following night, that is the night of the 19th September. 5. It was arranged that Thakur Jagmohan Singh should bring notes for this purpose the following night, that is the night of the 19th September. 5. In pursuance of this arrangement Thakur Jagmohan Singh took ten rupee notes and ten five rupee notes to the Dharmshala on the night of the 19th September after arranging that other police officers should also come to the place and wait within call. Thakur Jagmohan Singh went to the third storey of the Dharamshala where Raghunath and Sagar were, and the other Police Officers waited in a room on the ground floor. 6. The notes brought by Thakur Jagmohan Singh were handed over by him to Raghunath. Pieces of paper were cut by Sagar to their size and the notes and these pieces of paper were placed under a glass tied together and wrapped in an angocbha on which some powder was put. An angethi was then lighted and Sagar was directed by Raghunath to warm the packet on it. Sagar was then told by Raghunath to keep, the packet so that it might get cool, and this process was continued for some time, the packet being warmed at intervals of half an hour. Eventually, Raghunath said that they should place the packet in an almirah and go to bed it would be taken out at +.30 a. m. when the notes would be ready. The Sub-Inspector did not agree to this and said that he would remain awake, that is presumably until the process of doubling the notes was completed. About 4 a. m. Raghunath took up the packet and untied the angocha, doing this by the light of a torch. While he was so engaged, however, he managed to substitute another packet for the packet of notes and concealed the latter packet under his buttocks. The Sub-Inspector detected what had been done, caught hold of Raghunath's hands and shouted to the Police Officers below to come up. A man named Raghbar, Manager of the Dharmshala, who had originally given information to the Sub-Inspector was the first to arrive and after him came the Circle Inspector and other police officials. Thakur Jagmohan Singh asked the accused Raghunath where he had put the original packet and Raghunath pointing to the packet which had been substituted for it and which was lying before him said that that was the packet. Thakur Jagmohan Singh asked the accused Raghunath where he had put the original packet and Raghunath pointing to the packet which had been substituted for it and which was lying before him said that that was the packet. This packet was opened and was found to contain seven copies of a book. Under the right side buttock of Raghunath was. found the packet containing the notes. It was in the same condition as when originally tied up by Raghunath. 7. The evidence of Thakur Jagmohaa Singh was corroborated by the evidence of Thakur Sat Narain Singh, Circle Inspector, and by the evidence of the -Manager of the Dharamshala, Raghubar. Learned Counsel for the accused Raghunath, has referred to certain statements made by Raghubar, which he argues, throws some doubt on the facts. As translated the passage in the evidence of this witness to which we have been referred reads as follows: Haying reached the last step of the staircase I saw that Raghunath accused had stood up and Ex. XIII fell in front of right leg from the right thigh. The Daroghaji was holding his |both hands and asking him where his bundle was to which the accused had said "it is lying, in front". In the meantime the tub-Inspector arrived (presumably meaning the Circle Inspector) Packet Ex. XIII was lying under the buttock of the accused Raghunath. When it was opened it was found to contain seven books.... Packet Ex. VI when opened was found to contain 10 notes of Rs. 10 each and 10 notes of Rs. 5 each and blank papers after each note. 8. The packet containing the notes has actually Ex. VIII and the packet which was alleged to have been substituted for it Ex. XIII. It is quite clear, we think, that some mistake must have been made in recording the evidence of Raghubar because he has made quite different statements about Ex. XIII, namely, that when Raghunath stood up Ex. XIII fell in front of his right leg, and that the same exhibit was lying under Raghunath's buttock. The witness could not have seen what was lying under Raghunath's buttock before he stood up, for he says that after he had run up the stairs and had reached the last step of the staircase he saw Raghunath standing up. XIII fell in front of his right leg, and that the same exhibit was lying under Raghunath's buttock. The witness could not have seen what was lying under Raghunath's buttock before he stood up, for he says that after he had run up the stairs and had reached the last step of the staircase he saw Raghunath standing up. We find that in one place in the original record some other exhibit was at first referred to and then deleted and Ex. XIII substituted for it. The evidence of this witness seems to have been carelessly recorded. 9. This is the only point in the case which can be urged on behalf of the accused so far as the facts are concerned. As we have said, the accused denied entirely the allegations against him. He denied telling Thakur Jagmohan Singh that he could counterfeit notes ; he denied that Takur Jagmohan Singh had come to him on the 19th September and given him notes to the value of Rs. 150 for this purpose; and he entirely denied what according to the evidence, subsequently occurred. He also denied that he was arrested by the police that night, saying that he was arrested about 11 or 12 in the daytime. He produced no defence evidence "and we can find no reason to doubt the truth of the prosecution story. 10. The Special Magistrate acquitted the accused because he was of opinion that there had merely been preparation for the commission of the crime and that the stage of an attempt had not been reached. Ha also observed that Thakur Jagmohan Singh had not been deceived and had not parted with the notes under any inducement which was fraudulent because he was fully aware that the accused could not make genuine notes. At the same time he gave the currency notes to be doubled and entered into an illegal contract. The Magistrate was of opinion that as such a contract was opposed to public policy it was void and could not be enforced in the Civil Courts criminal, proceedings could not be taken on the basis of it. 11. At the same time he gave the currency notes to be doubled and entered into an illegal contract. The Magistrate was of opinion that as such a contract was opposed to public policy it was void and could not be enforced in the Civil Courts criminal, proceedings could not be taken on the basis of it. 11. The Magistrate also observed that if the accused after replacing the genuine bundle had handed over the other bundle containing the books to Thsikur Jagmohan-Singh and asked him to wait for him and proceeded to depart from the place with the genuine bundle and if he had then been arrested the stage of preparation would have ended and the stage of attempt would have come into play. 12. We have heard learned Counsel on the legal aspect of the case at length and are clearly of opinion that the Special Magistrate misdirected himself. 13. In support of his view that criminal proceedings could not be taken on the basis of a contract which could not be enforced in the Civil Courts, the Magistrate referred to a Bombay case, Emperor v. Jani Hira (1912) 13 Cr.L.J. 521: 15 I.C. 793. It is certainly true that the judgment in this case lends some color to the view taken I by the Magistrate, but the judgment in the case is very brief and it has subsequently been dissented from. There was also some doubt in that case whether there had actually been an attempt to cheat. The]' accused had agreed to let her daughter] on hire to a person for concubinage and subsequently refused to do so or to return a sum of money advanced to her. The Sessions Judge who referred the case thought it probable that she originally intended to let the complainant have her daughter and only changed her mind later. The Bombay "High Court agreed that for the reasons stated by the Sessions Judge the case was not one for the Criminal Court. They observed that the accused and the complainant had entered into a contract which was clearly void for immorality The complainant would not be entitled to obtain any relief from a Civil Court for its breach, but that was no reason why he should be allowed to prosecute the accused on a charge of cheating. They observed that the accused and the complainant had entered into a contract which was clearly void for immorality The complainant would not be entitled to obtain any relief from a Civil Court for its breach, but that was no reason why he should be allowed to prosecute the accused on a charge of cheating. We cannot read into this judgment the general principle stated in the head note to it that a party should not be allowed to prosecute on a charge of cheating when he would not be entitled to obtain from a Civil Court any relief for breach of the contract. 14. Apart from this, as we have said, the suggestion that a criminal prosecution must fail if it is based upon a contract which could not be enforced in a Civil Court has been expressly repelled in two later cases, namely, Meera v. Emperor AIR 1917 LB 105 and Yacoob v. Emperor AIR 1938 Rang 199, We see no reason to dissent from this later view. 15. With regard to the observation of the Magistrate that there could not be an attempt to cheat Thakur Jagmohan Singh because he did not hand over the money under any deception, we need only refer to two cases in which it has been held that a man may be guilty of an attempt to cheat, although the person he attempts to cheat is forewarned and is, therefore, not cheated. This was laid down in the Government of Bengal v. Umesh Chander Mitter (1888) 16 Cal 810 and Crown v. Shib Charan (1928) 10 Lah. 263 : AIR 1928 Lah. 551. 16. Learned Counsel for Raghunath has taken up two positions in his argument on his client's behalf. He has argued first of all that there may have been an attempt to deceive the Sub-Inspector at one stage of the transaction, but that that stage passed when the notes were actually handed over by him, and that, therefore, if the Sub-Inspector had handed over the notes because he was deceived, the offence would have been complete. Since, however, the Sub-Inspector did not hand over the notes because he was deceived but merely because he wanted to secure the accused's conviction, the offence of cheating was not actually committed. Since, however, the Sub-Inspector did not hand over the notes because he was deceived but merely because he wanted to secure the accused's conviction, the offence of cheating was not actually committed. With the latter part of this argument we see no reason to disagree," but we are unable to accept the argument that if there was in the first instance an attempt to deceive, the legal position in regard to the accused's guilt changed when the notes were actually handed over. If the accused was at one stage guilty of an attempt to cheat Thakur Jagmohan Singh, nothing that transpired subsequently could affect his guilt. 17. Secondly, learned Counsel has tried to support the view taken by the Magistrate that the case had not proceeded beyond the stage of preparation. He has referred to a case of the Patna High Court, Skeo Prasad and Others Vs. Emperor, AIR 1926 Patna 267 in which it was held that the mere taking of thumb-impressions on a blank piece of paper may be a preparation to cheat, but unless something is written on it, it cannot amount to cheating or attempt to cheat. We cannot see any similarity at all between that case and the case under consideration. There would have, been a similarity if the accused in the present case had merely got everything ready in the Dharamshala for the purpose of cheating the Sub-Inspector or anybody else who wanted to have their notes doubled. Clearly he went beyond the stage of preparation when he tried to induce a person to hand over notes to him on the assurance that he could double them. 18. Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for the offence of attempting to commit an offence punishable by that Code with transportation or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, when in such attempt the person accused does any act towards the commission of the offence. We have therefore to see whether the accused in the present case did any act towards the commission of the offence of cheating. We have no doubt whatever that he did. It is not necessary that the accused should complete every stage in the actual offence except the final stage. In Emperor Vs. We have therefore to see whether the accused in the present case did any act towards the commission of the offence of cheating. We have no doubt whatever that he did. It is not necessary that the accused should complete every stage in the actual offence except the final stage. In Emperor Vs. Mansing Daji Patil, (1913) 15 BOMLR 568 the accused bad contracted to deliver a certain quantity of good cotton to the complainants, but delivered instead a quantity of bad cotton, that is to say, cotton heavily adulterated with rubbish in such a manner that the fraud would be likely to escape ordinary inspection. The complainant's agent suspected the character of the goods and declined to accept them. The accused were convicted of attempting to cheat, but on appeal were acquitted by the Sessions Judge on the ground that the acts did not amount to an attempt to cheat, but only to preparation for cheating. The Bombay High Court set aside the acquittal, holding that there was a complete case of an attempt to cheat. The only reason why the offence stopped short at an attempt and did not proceed to the cheating itself was because the party who was sought to be cheated was cautious and not confiding. An overt act was begun by the accused which would have led to the finished offence but for an interruption arising independently of the will of the accused. 19. The Allahabad High Court also In the matter of the petition of R. Mac Crea (1893) 16 All 173 held that Section 511 was not meant to cover only the penultimate act towards the completion of an offence and not acts precedent, if those acts are done in the course of the attempt to commit the offence, are done with the intent to commit it, and done towards its commission. 20. There can be no doubt in our opinion that Raghunath went far beyond the stage of preparation-indeed but for the fact that the Sub-Inspector had not actually been deceived the offence would have been complete. We can see no reason why in these circumstances Raghunath should not be convinced u/s 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. We have shown that the question of the accused's guilt is not affected by the knowledge of the Sub-Inspector in regard to the accused's intentions. We can see no reason why in these circumstances Raghunath should not be convinced u/s 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. We have shown that the question of the accused's guilt is not affected by the knowledge of the Sub-Inspector in regard to the accused's intentions. The accused was not aware of the Sub-Inspector's knowledge and there can be no doubt that he did attempt to cheat the Sub-Inspector by dishonestly deceiving him and inducing him under such deception to hand over the notes to him. 21. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order of acquittal and convict Raghunath alias Ram Singh of the offence charged u/s 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. 22. Raghunath admitted that he had been previously convicted of an offence. u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code in 1937 and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. He is therefore liable to enhanced punishment u/s 75. We consider that a deterrent sentence is called for in the present case. We accordingly sentence-him to undergo three gears' rigorous imprisonment.