Attempt to cheat may be made out even without actual deception where false representation and inducement to pay are proved.

A false representation made to induce delivery of money can amount to an attempt to cheat when the acts have moved beyond preparation and are directed towards the commission of cheating under section 511 of the Penal Code. Actual deception of the complainant is not required, because liability for attempt may arise even if the intended victim suspects the fraud and is not in fact deceived. On the facts stated, the conduct proved satisfied the ingredients of attempt, and the conviction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acts proved constituted an attempt to cheat under the Indian Penal Code, or were no more than preparation; and whether absence of actual deception of the complainant negatived liability for attempt.

Analysis: The accused made a false representation to the complainant, induced him to produce money, and obtained part of the promised amount. These acts went beyond preparation and amounted to acts done towards the commission of cheating within the meaning of section 511, since the making of a false representation and delivery of property are essential ingredients of the substantive offence of cheating. Actual success in deceiving the complainant was not necessary, because an attempt may exist even where the intended victim suspects the fraud and is not in fact deceived.

Conclusion: The conduct proved constituted an attempt to cheat, and the absence of actual deception did not defeat the charge.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A person may be guilty of an attempt to cheat when he makes a false representation and performs acts directed towards obtaining property, even if the intended victim is not actually deceived.

---