JUDGMENT Gagna Nath, J. - This is an appeal from jail by Chhedi against his conviction and sentence u/s 417/75 I.P.C. He has been sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. 2. The case for the prosecution was that the Appellant came to Binda Ahir in village Sitapur on the evening of the 17th of July, 1941 and told him that Banda's son Ram Nath who was working as a trolleyman had improperly pulled the alarm chain of the train in which he was travelling and broke it, that the driver of the engine in his attempt to stop the train sustained injuries and that Ram Nath had been taken in custody and was in the lock up. He further told Binda that Ram Nath had sent him to bring Rs. 110 to secure his release. Binda somehow arranged for Rs. 110 and started for Lucknow the next morning with Jag Mohan and the accused. The accused took Binda and Jag Mohan first to a hospital at Lucknow and tried to get the money from Binda to be given to the driver who, as alleged by the accused was lying in a serious condition in the hospital. Binda did not give the money. The accused then took Binda and Jag Mohan to another house and went inside. He came out with a piece of paper and said that it was the release order which he had obtained from a Babu who was inside the house and that the money should be given to him to be paid to the Babu. Binda refused to give the money to the accused saying that he would give it only after he had seen his son. The accused then took Binda and Jag Mohan to the Guard room. In the way they met some men of the platelayer to whim Binda told the whole story. They called the police and the Appellant was got arrested. The accused was taken to Alambagh police station where report Ex. 1 was made by Binda. 3. The evidence of Jag Mohan P.W. 2 and Rampal P.W. 3, proves the facts narrated above. The Appellant was charged with an offence u/s 420 I.P.C. but the learned Judge has convicted him of an offence u/s 417 I.P.C. bee use the Appellant did not succeed in getting any property. 1 was made by Binda. 3. The evidence of Jag Mohan P.W. 2 and Rampal P.W. 3, proves the facts narrated above. The Appellant was charged with an offence u/s 420 I.P.C. but the learned Judge has convicted him of an offence u/s 417 I.P.C. bee use the Appellant did not succeed in getting any property. The offence of cheating u/s 417 was not complete as the Appellant did not succeed in making Binda deliver any property to him or to any person. But there could be no doubt that the Appellant was guilty of the offence of an attempt to cheat Binda. Tinder Section 238 Sub-section (2)(a) Code of Criminal Procedure the Appellant can be convicted of an attempt to cheat. Sub-section 2 (a) is: When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence, although the attempt is not separately charged. 4. The other question that arises for consideration in this case is whether Section 75 I.P.C. would apply to the case. An attempt to commit an offence is itself an offence within the definition of an offence as given in Section 40 I.P.C. It is punishable u/s 511 I.P.C. where no express provision is made in any other part of the Code for the punishment of such an offence. Section 75 applies, in the case of a second conviction, to offences punishable under Chapter 12 and Chapter 17 I.P.C. An attempt to cheat is not an offence punishable under Chapter 12 or Chapter 17 of the Code but it is punishable u/s 511 in Chapter 23. Consequently Section 75 would not apply to the offence of an attempt to cheat. 5. The punishment for the offence of an attempt to cheat u/s 511 I.P.C. would be only half of the longest term provided for the offence of cheating u/s 417 I.P.C. which is only one year, I, therefore, alter the conviction u/s 417/75 I.P.C. to one u/s 417/511 I.P.C. and reduce the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment to that of six months' rigorous imprisonment.