JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioners stood charged under Sections 489-A/489-D/511/34, Indian Penal Code, by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Parlakhemundi, in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1982. They have been convicted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge under Sections 489-A/511/34, Indian Penal Code, as well as under Sections 489-A/34, Indian Penal Code. For the conviction under Sections 489-A/511/34 Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days each and for their conviction under Sections 489-A/34, Indian Penal Code, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days each with a direction that the sentences are to run concurrently. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has affirmed the conviction and sentence and hence the present revision. 2. The prosecution case is that on 31.8.1980 at 7.30 A.M. when P.W. 6, the Officer-in-charge of Paralakhemundi police Station along with P.W. 4, the Sub Inspector of Police, and P.W. 3, the A.S.I. of Police raided the house in occupation of Petitioner V. Simhachalam, they could see that the three Petitioners were inside the room and were preparing counterfeit notes with the help of chemicals and other materials kept by their side, P.W. 5 then pushed open the door, gave his personal search and entered inside the room, caught-hold of the Petitioners and seized on G.C. note of ten rupee denomination, two G C. notes of twenty rupee denomination and other articles (M.Os I to XI) under seizure list (Ext. 1). He then drew up the F.I.R. (Ext. 2) and arrested the accused persons and forwarded them to the Court. On 22.12.1980, the Crime Branch took charge of the investigation from P.W. 5 and also took charge of the seized chemicals and several other articles and then sent some of them to the General Manager, Bank Note Press. He then handed aver the charge of the case to P.W. 6. P.W. 6 received Ext. 4, the report from the General Manager, Bank Note Press and on completion of the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the Petitioners, as stated earlier. The Magistrate then committed the case to the Court of Session. 3. He then handed aver the charge of the case to P.W. 6. P.W. 6 received Ext. 4, the report from the General Manager, Bank Note Press and on completion of the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the Petitioners, as stated earlier. The Magistrate then committed the case to the Court of Session. 3. The plea of the accused persons is one of denial and that they have been falsely implicated. 4. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and exhibited a lot of documents. Several seized articles were also marked as material objects. On consideration of the entire prosecution evidence, the learned Trial Judge as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the Petitioners were found being engaged in the process of preparing counterfeit notes by doing different acts like cutting of Rapers to size, putting chemicals to the papers and taking negative impression of the notes and thereby committed the offence u/s 489-A as well as u/s 489-D of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Mr. Patnaik, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, raises the following contentions in assailing the order of conviction: (i) The report (Ext. 4) which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosection case cannot be taken in evidence since the person who has given the report has not been examined; (ii) There being no evidence to the effect that the Petitioners either counterfeited or performed any part of the process of counterfeiting any currency-note or bank note, the conviction u/s 489-A, Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained; and (iii) Even if Ext. 4 is taken into account, yet mere possession of the materials would not attract Section 489-D of the Indian Penal Code since the prosecution must further establish that the materials were in possession for the purpose of being used or knowing or having reason to believe that the same were intended to be used for forging or counterfeiting any currency note. The aforesaid contentions require careful examination. 6. So far as the first contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is concerned, I do not find any merit in the same. The aforesaid contentions require careful examination. 6. So far as the first contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is concerned, I do not find any merit in the same. Section 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provided that a document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Gazetted Officer of the Mint can be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding although such officer is not called as a witness. Ext. 4 clearly indicates that the report is that of an officer of the Mint and in fact, it has been clearly stated in the report that attention is drawn to Section 292 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In that view of the matter, the report can be gone into in evidence without the person giving the report being examined. The first contention of Mr. Patnaik is accordingly rejected. 7. Coming now to the question as to whether the offence u/s 489-A read with Section 511/34, Indian Penal Code has been committed or not, short question for consideration is as to whether the materials on record are sufficient to come to a conclusion that the Petitioners were in the process of preparation of counterfeiting notes or not. By reason of Section 511, Indian Penal Code, an attempt to commit the offence becomes punishable. The attempt is distinguishable from intention and preparation. In every crime there are four stages namely, intention to commit preparation to commit; attempt to commit and commission. It is not the prosecution case that the Petitioners either counterfeited or performed any part of the process of counterfeiting. On the other hand, it is the prosecution case that the Petitioners attempted to commit the offence u/s 489-A of the Indian Penal Code. It has been invariably held that it is not possible to give a precise or exhaustive definition of the word "attempt", but it has been held in several cases that broadly stated, an intentional act which a person does towards the commission of an offence which fails in its object through circumstances independent of the volition of that person is termed as " attempt". See, State of U.P. v. Ram Charan AIR 1962 All 259. An attempt is a direct movement towards the commission after the preparation has been made. It is a greater degree of determination as compared with preparation. See, State of U.P. v. Ram Charan AIR 1962 All 259. An attempt is a direct movement towards the commission after the preparation has been made. It is a greater degree of determination as compared with preparation. Though there is a thin line between "preparation for" and "attempt to", yet the difference is there if the attempt succeeds then the offence is committed; if it fails due to reasons beyond control, then it is said that the accused attempted, to commit the offence. In other words attempt beings when preparations are complete and the accused commences to do something with the intention of committing the offence which is a step towards commission of the offence. The moment he commences to do an act with the necessary intention, he commences his attempt to commit the offence. The best exposition of the law in this regard has been made by the Supreme Court in the case of Abhayanand Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar, and in the case of Sudhir Kumar Mukherjee and Sham Lal Shaw Vs. State of West Bengal. Applying the tests to the present case, it must be held that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment has stated that all the witnesses have stated that the accused persons were seen busy in preparing counterfeit notes by putting chemicals to the papers In view of the aforesaid finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on consideration of the evidence on record, the ultimate conclusion that the offence u/s 489-A read with Section 511, Indian Penal Code, is established remains unassailable. I would, therefore, have no hesitation to reject the submission of Mr. Patnaik, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, on this score. 8. So far as the offence u/s 489-D, Indian Penal Code is concerned, it also presupposes that the accused must be in possession of materials for the purpose of being used, or knowing or having reason to believe that the materials are intended to be used for forging or counterfeiting any currency notes. The report (Ext. 4) indicates that the chemicals sent to the Mint for being tested were vested and it is observed that these chemicals can be used for preparation of forged notes in one way or the other. The report (Ext. 4) indicates that the chemicals sent to the Mint for being tested were vested and it is observed that these chemicals can be used for preparation of forged notes in one way or the other. In view of my conclusion earlier that the accused-Petitioners had been attempting to prepare counterfeit notes and in view of the report (Ext. 4), referred to earlier, it must be held that the offence u/s 489-D read with Section 511, Indian Penal Code, is well established. I would, therefore, reject the submission of Mr. Patnaik on this score as untenable. 9. All the contentions having failed, this revision is dismissed. The Petitioners are directed to surrender to serve the sentence. Final Result : Dismissed