Mohinder Singh vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.—Mohinder Singh appellant stands sentenced to six months'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months, under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

On the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd November, 1982, Piara Singh Head Constable PW2 and Sukhdev Singh subInspector Food and Supplies PW1 organised a nakabandi at the Jagatpur barrier. Truck No. PBP 9995 driven by the appellant came from the side of village Chila Manoli at about 5 a.m. on 23rd November, 1982. The same was stopped. It was loaded with 140 bags of rice containing about 135 quintals of rice. The appellant did not have any export permit for the same. The truck and the rice were taken into possession by the Head Constable vide memo Exhibit P.A. First information Report Exhibit PB/1 was recorded at Police Station, Mubarkpur, on 23rd November, 1982 at 8.15 a.m. Since vide notification No. GSR92/GA/55/S3/81, dated 22nd October, 1981, paddy was declared as an essential commodity and the movement of the same outside Punjab from the State of Punjab was an offence, the appellant was challaned, convicted and sentenced as above.

Admittedly the truck was apprehended at a short distance from the boundary of the Union Territory, Chandigarh. The question which, therefore, calls for determination is as to whether the presence of the truck at a short distance from the Union Territory, Chandigarh, would amount to an attempt to commit an offence. There is a thin line between preparation for an offence and an attempt to commit an offence. It has to be decided keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case whether the act would amount to be mere preparation to commit an offence or would be termed as an attempt to commit an offence. In the case in hand the appellant could have changed his mind at any place short of the boundary of the Union Territory, Chandigarh. In that case it cannot said that it was an attempt to commit an offence. Support to this proposition can be sought from Mohinder Singh and another v. State of Haryana 1983 (1) C.L.R. 76, which was relied upon by me in earlier case, namely, Har Chand and another v. The State of Punjab 1985(1) Recent C.R. 368 (Criminal Appeal No. 491SB of 1983 decided on 29th March, 1984). In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the appellant beyond a shadow of doubt. Consequently I allow this appeal and acquit the appellant of the charge. The fine, if already paid would be refunded to the appellant.