ORDER : 1. The two applts. Ram Nath and Radha Shyam have been convicted under S. 413 read with S. 529 of Gwalior Penal Code and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 3 months and a fine of Rs. 200 each by the City Mag. Lashkar. These two sections of Gwalior Penal Code correspond to Ss. 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Ses. J. has dismissed their appeals. The two applts. have preferred a revision petn. against this order. 2. The prosecution story is that on 15-1-1949 the two petnrs. approached the complainant Raghunath Prasad; and Ram Nath told him that his companion knew how to double the currency notes. Raghunath Prashad then gave currency notes to the value of Rupees 940. The two petnrs. took the currency notes and pretended to do some work in order to double them. In the evening both of them went to the picture with the complainant and thereafter they told the complainant that the process is still incomplete and he should wait till the next morning. Raghunath Prasad felt that they might not run away; he, therefore, waited outside the house whole night and in the early morning informed the police who arrested the two accused. Notes were recovered from the two accused and they were challaned and convicted as stated above. 3. The testimony of Raghunath has been believed by the Ct. who had the advantage of seeing him. The first appellate Ct. also believed him and irrespective of anything in the previous first information report I do not think any ground has been made out to disbelive the complainant. I am, therefore, unable to disturb the concurrent findings of fact. 4. Mr. Inamdar has, however, raised an important law point in this case. He has invited my attention to the statement of complainant Raghunath Prashad who admits that he did not believe that the currency notes could be doubled. He, however, states that he had delivered the currency notes only as a matter of joke; and another cause of delivery of these currency notes was that one Gangadhar Vishnu Nakhare had come to the complainant and the latter had agreed with him that these two persons should be entrapped and should be handed over to the police. The complainant says that due to these causes he delivered the currency notes to the accused. The complainant says that due to these causes he delivered the currency notes to the accused. 5. On the basis of this statement, Mr. Inamdar contends that if the delivery of the currency notes was with a view to entrap the accused there could have been no offence under S. 415, Indian Penal Code. 6. The offence of cheating as defined in S. 514 consists of two alternatives each of which is wholly independent of, and different from the other. We are concerned in this case only with the first alternative, the component parts of which are (a) deceiving any person and (b) fradulently or dishonestly inducing the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person. 7. The hope of being able to deceive is always an important element in determining whether or not there is dishonest intention to deceive. That the accused tried to deceive in this case is quite clear. To constitute the offence of cheating, however, there must be deception which must proceed (sic) and induce the delivery or retention of the property (Ram Nath Kala Pahar v. King-Emperor, 3 Cr. L. j. 160 : (2 C.L.j. 524). (The question in the case before me is whether Raghunath was induced in any way to deliver these currency notes to the accused. If he was not induced to do so fradulently or dishonestly the offence of cheating cannot be said to have been established. The deceit must have been practised before the property is delivered. Wherever the prosecutor himself knows the falsehood of the pretence but notwithstanding this, parts with his money or goods the accused cannot be convicted of the offence of cheating. To this extent Mr. Inamdar's contention is sound and reasonable; but Mr. Inamdar further contends that as the statutable offence could not have been committed, the prisoner could not have been convicted even for attempting to commit it. In an English case Reg. v. Hensler, (1871) 11 Cox C. C. 570: (19 W. R. 108) the same argument was answered by two of the Judges in the following words : Blackburn, J :-You may attempt to steal from a man who is too strong to prevent you. Mellor, j.-or an attempt may be made to steal a watch that is too strongly fastened by a guard. Mellor, j.-or an attempt may be made to steal a watch that is too strongly fastened by a guard. Here the prosecutor has the money, and was capable of being deceived, and the prisoner attempted to deceive him. " 8. In the case before me the offence which the petrs. committed is of making the false pretence and asking for the currency notes and this in itself constituted an attempt to cheat. Even if the currency notes had not been delivered to the petnr. the attempt to cheat was complete. 'Cheating' and an 'attempt to cheat' are distinct offences. A long interval can elapse between the moment when the attempt to commit the offence of cheating commences and the moment when actual offence of cheating is completed. When the preparation already made for committing the fraud is brought to bear upon the mind of the person to be deceived the offence of attempt to cheat is committed; and when the person yields to this deception the offence of cheating is committed. Between these two stages a considerable interval of time may elapse. The attempt once begun and a criminal act done in pursuance of it towards the commission of the act attempted, it does not cease to be a criminal attempt because the person committing the offence may repent before the attempt is completed. In the matter of Maccred, 15 all. 173 at p. 180 : (1893 a.w.n. 71). 9. If there was an attempt to deceive as it was clear to have been in this case, then the legal intention in regard to the accused's guilt could not have changed when the currency notes were actually handed over. In other words, if the accused were at one stage guilty of an attempt to cheat Raghunath Prashad, nothing that transpired subsequently could affect their guilt. Whatever may have been in the mind of the complainant, the accused clearly went beyond the stage of preparation when they tried to induce him to handover currency notes to them on the assurance that they would double them and their intention was clear when they again and again, tried to put off the complainant saying that the process is still incomplete and it will take some more time. Again, a man may be guilty of an attempt to cheat although the person he attempts to cheat is forewarned and is therefore not cheated; Government of Bengal v. Umesh Chunder, 16 Cal. 310, Emperor v, Shib Charan, 10 Lah. 253 : (a. I. R. (15) 1928 Lah. 551 : 29 Cr.L.J. 780) and Emperor v. Raghunath, 16 Luck. 194 : (A.I.R. (28) 1941 Oudh 3 ; 41 Cr.L.J. 881). 10. The facts of this case are on all fours with Emperor v. Raghunath, 16 Luck. 194 : (a.I.R. (28) 1941 Oudh 3 : 41 Cr.l.J. 881). In the present case also pieces of papers were cut by the accused to the size of the currency notes and these pieces of papers ware kept under a glass and tied together and thereafter some other process was to be continued. When arrested the accused denied having taken any currency notes from the complainant and claimed the currency notes to be their own. 11. Mr. Inamdar, however, tries to distinguish Emperor v. Raghunath, 16 Luck. 194 ; (a.I.R. (28) 1941 Oudh 3 : 44 Cr.l.J. 881) from the present case. He contends that in the Lucknow case when the accused posed that be could double a currency note and a Police officer knowing that he could not do so but with a view to get him convicted gave him notes and caught him, while, after going through a mock process of doubling notes he tried to substitute some pages of a book in their place; and in Mr. Inamdar's opinion it was the substitution of these pages in place of currency notes that led to the conviction because it was this act towards the commission of the offence which led the Lucknow Chief Court to hold that the accused had gone far beyond the stage of preparation. Though the head note of this case lends some colour to Mr. Inamdar'a contention, still I do not think the substitution of the pages was so important as to determine whether it was an attempt to cheat or not. In my opinion the following para from the Lucknow case will make the idea abundantly clear: "There can be no doubt in our opinion, that Raghunath went far beyond the stage of preparation indeed but the fact that the Sub-Inspector had not actually been deceived the offence would have been complete. In my opinion the following para from the Lucknow case will make the idea abundantly clear: "There can be no doubt in our opinion, that Raghunath went far beyond the stage of preparation indeed but 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 convicted under S. 420 read with S. 511, 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." 12. The reasoning is quite clear and applies to this case and on the facts found by the two Cts. in the case before me I think they were rightly convicted for an offence to attempt to cheat and no interference is called for. 13. I, therefore, dismiss the revision petn.