Order.- This is a criminal revision case sought to be filed against the conviction and sentence of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Vellore in C.C. No. 49 of 1951 and confirmed in C.A. No. 132 of 1951 by the Sessions Judge of North Arcot. The facts are: P.W. 1 Chinniah Mudaliar is a landowner and money-lender of Tiruppakkadal. The accused borrowed from this P.W. 1 a sum of Rs. 800 on 27th December, 1948, and executed the promissory note Ex. P-1. On 5th October, 1949, a sum of Rs. 114 was paid towards interest and an endorsement to that effect Ex. P-1(a) was made on Ex. P-1 by the accused himself and Kuppuswami attested it. Two months prior to December, 1950, the accused gave Rs. 36-8-0 in instalments and when asked to give more the accused is stated to have asked P.W. 1 to come to his village 2 or 3 days later. On 15th December, 1950, P.W. 1 went to accused’s village and asked the accused to come to the house of P. W. 2 Kuppuswami. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were waiting. As requested, the accused came to P.W. 2’s house. The accused told P.Ws. 1 and 2 that he had brought Rs. 13-8-0 to make up Rs. 50 placed the money near P.W. 2 and asked for the promissory note to be given to him. P.W. 1 gave the promissory note to P.W. 2 who in turn gave it to the accused and the accused wrote an endorsement while P.W. 2 was counting the money. When the promissory note was handed over to P.W. 2 it was found that the accused had made an endorsement of payment of Rs. 750 instead of Rs. 50. On being questioned the accused said “Come to my house. I will give the entire amount” and took the cash of Rs. 13-8-0 with him and went away on his bicycle. P.Ws. 1 and 2 gave chase to the accused. P.W. 3 Dhanakoti Pillai who knows P.W. 1 well saw P.Ws. 1 and 2 coming by his street at about 9-30 A.M., and the accused going at a distance on a bicycle. P.Ws. 1 and 2 sought the assistance of P. W. 3 to hail the accused to stop. P.W. 3 did so and the accused went away without heeding him. P.W. 3 learnt from P.Ws. 1 and 2 coming by his street at about 9-30 A.M., and the accused going at a distance on a bicycle. P.Ws. 1 and 2 sought the assistance of P. W. 3 to hail the accused to stop. P.W. 3 did so and the accused went away without heeding him. P.W. 3 learnt from P.Ws. 1 and 2 as to what had happened. Then these three persons chased the accused and met him on the road Kadai. On being questioned there by P.W. 3 the accused stated “What has been entered as payment has been entered as payment” and left the place. Thereupon P.W. 1 went and reported to the Sub-Inspector of Police who directed them to go to the Munsiff’s Court apparently thinking that it was a civil matter. P.W. 1 consulted the vakils, went to Vellore got a complaint prepared and filed it as a private complaint. In the course of the enquiry the version of P.Ws. I to 3 set out above was corroborated by two others P.Ws. 4 and 5, respectable inhabitants of the place. The testimony of P.W. 4 is that while he was sitting in his house at about 9-30 a.m. on the day in question he saw the accused who told him that he was going to P.W. 2’s house to repay his dues to P.W. 1 and that a few minutes later he saw the accused going away followed by P.Ws. 1 and 2 and that from P.Ws. 1 and 2 he learnt all that had happened. P.W. 5 also spoke to a similar story. The case for the accused in the Court was that as a matter of fact he had paid Rs. 750 towards the note and that P.W. 2 Kuppuswami had concocted this false story of non-payment. Two witnesses were examined by the accused one to prove an alibi not for himself (accused) but for P.W. 1 to show that the transaction did not take place as alleged and the other D.W. 2 to show that a transaction took place between himself accused and D.W. 2 under which D.W. 2 paid the accused Rs. 700 and which the accused wants to imply went to furnish the amount for the payment of Rs. 750 alleged by him. This witness D.W. 2 also wanted to make out that P.W. 2 was cognizant of this transaction. 700 and which the accused wants to imply went to furnish the amount for the payment of Rs. 750 alleged by him. This witness D.W. 2 also wanted to make out that P.W. 2 was cognizant of this transaction. On the facts both the lower Courts have found that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that what happened took place only as set out by P.Ws. 1 to 5 and that the alleged payment of Rs. 750 by the accused is false and that the witnesses D.Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be believed. In addition, the learned Magistrate has been impressed with the demeanour of the P.Ws. and in the case of the complainant he has remarked “P.W. 1 is a respectable old man and his demeanour in Court struck me as that of a truthful person.” In regard to P.Ws. 2 and 3 he has stated “P.Ws. 2 and 3 stood the test of cross-examination well.” Therefore, there are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with these findings of fact and I accept them. The only point of law taken is that the act attributed to the accused does not amount to an attempt to cheat and in support of it the learned advocate relies upon these decisions. The first decision relied upon is Hurjee Mull v. Imam Ali Sircar1. The facts of this case were: On the 25th of Jeshta a bill was presented to the accused in his shop by B, a servant of H, for payment of money due by accused to H. On the bill was printed a stipulation that any payment on account of the bill unless endorsed on its back would not be admitted. The prosecution alleged that the accused took the bill from B and (in the presence of B, and several other persons) wrote on its back the endorsement “17th Jeshta - through B Rs. 501” whereupon B snatched away the bill from the accused and asked for. payment of the amount thus entered on the bill, to which the accused answered “Go away, I have paid.” Upon these allegations the accused was convicted on charges of forgery and attempt to cheat. The defence was that Rs. 501” whereupon B snatched away the bill from the accused and asked for. payment of the amount thus entered on the bill, to which the accused answered “Go away, I have paid.” Upon these allegations the accused was convicted on charges of forgery and attempt to cheat. The defence was that Rs. 501 had in fact been paid to B on 17th of Jeshta and had accordingly been entered in the books of the accused (which were produced) on the 17th of Jeshta but that the payment had not been endorsed on the bill on the 17th Jeshta as B had not brought the bill with him on that date that the bill was endorsed by the accused in the manner mentioned on 25th of Jeshta and that B took it away without protest or altercation of any kind. It was held on the facts generally that there was no evidence to go to the jury in respect of either of the charges and held as to the charge of forgery that the circumstances of the case did not justify the inference that the endorsement was made by the accused with the intention of causing it to be believed that it was made on the 17th and not on the 25th of Jeshta when in fact it was made; held as to the charge of attempt to cheat that the bill having been snatched away from the accused before he had given any indication of what he had meant to do with it, the acts of the accused did not constitute an attempt to cheat, supposing that it was cheating that the accused intended and was prepared to commit. An attempt to deceive by a false representation of fact involves that the person charged should have taken some step towards communication of the representation to the person whom it was his intention to deceive and that in the instant case in the trial on a charge of attempting to cheat, it was a serious defect and one which placed the accused at a considerable disadvantage in the conduct of his defence, that the charge framed against him was silent as to the person upon whom the alleged attempt to cheat was made and also the manner in which it was intended by the accused to influence the conduct of that person. The contention of the advocate for the accused in that case, Mr. Garth was that what took place amounted only to preparation and not an attempt. It will be seen that the facts of the instant case are entirely different, and this decision has no application whatsoever. The instant case is not a case of mere preparation which is an indifferent act possessing no definite indication of criminality. It is no doubt true that it is not unoften a question of nicety as to where does preparation end and attempt begins. The answer to this question is, an attempt is an act of such a nature that it is in itself evidence of the criminal intent with which it is done. A criminal attempt bears the criminal intent upon its face. The thing speaks for itself. If this formula is applied to the instant case it will be seen from the facts set out above that what the accused intended and did and achieved went beyond the stage of preparation and constituted a criminal attempt at cheating. The learned advocate then relied upon several cases reported of fraud committed by post. The debtor advises his creditor of the remittance of a sum of money in currency notes by insured post. On opening it the creditor finds its contents worthless. What offence has the debtor committed? It has been held in some cases that his offence is an attempt to cheat: Arura v. Emperor1, Sadholal v. Emperor2, while in others it is held to constitute no offence; Raman Behary Roy v. Emperor3, Tularam v. King-Emperor4, Vaithianathasami Aiyar, In re5, though in two cases it was conceded that it might amount to fabrication of evidence: Vaithianathasami Aiyar, In re5 and Tularam v. King-Emperor4. The act seems more in the nature of a preparation than an attempt, for which a closer relation to cheating would seem to be necessary. This appears to be the rationale of the case in which the accused a broker had entered into a contract with the complainant for the sale of jute on behalf of the firm B which proved to be a fictitious one. The price of jute having risen the complainant prosecuted the broker but the prosecution was quashed on the ground that the prospective harm to the complainant was both uncertain and too remote: Harendra Math Das v. Jyotish Chandra Datta6. The price of jute having risen the complainant prosecuted the broker but the prosecution was quashed on the ground that the prospective harm to the complainant was both uncertain and too remote: Harendra Math Das v. Jyotish Chandra Datta6. On the other hand, the facts of this case fall more appropriately within the ambit of the decision in Queen-Empress v. Kunju Nayar7. In this case the prisoner was requested to make an entry in a book of account belonging to the complainant to the effect that he was indebted to the complainant in a certain sum found due on a settlement of accounts. Instead of making this entry as requested, the prisoner entered in a different language not known to the complainant that this sum had been paid to the complainant. Held that the offence committed by the accused was an attempt to cheat. The net result of the analysis of the evidence in this case is that the accused representing that he was going to pay a sum of Rs. 13-8-0 to make up Rs. 50 placed the money near P.W. 2 and wanted the promissory note to endorse on the back of it this payment of Rs. 50 and instead of that entered a. payment of Rs. 750 and that when he was questioned asked P.Ws. 1 and 2 to come to his house to get the entire sum of money and went away on his bicycle and was chased in vain by P.Ws. 1 to 3 and that when he was finally cornered stated that what had been entered as payment had been entered as a payment and would not give any further satisfaction and obviously tried to swindle thereby this P.W. 1 of a sum of Rs. 750 minus Rs. 36-8-0. This is not a question of preparation but a bare-faced criminal attempt to cheat P.W. 1. The point of law taken therefore fails and this criminal revision case is dismissed. K.S. ----- Revision case dismissed.