Raj Kumar and Anr. vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.

Raj Kumar and Sarmukh Singh appellants have by way of this appeal challenged the order of the Special Judge, Ropar, dated 11th November, 1983, convicting and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500 each, in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months each, under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

On the night intervening 11th and 12th January, 1983, at about 5 a.m. truck No. PBW 2177 was apprehended near Jagatpura barrier by Chhajja Singh, SubInspector of Food and Surplices Department and Head Constables Didar Singh and Piara Singh PWs. The truck was being driven by Sarmukh Singh appellant. Raj Kumar appellant was sitting by his side. The truck was carrying 111 quintals and 95 kilos of paddy. Neither of the appellants could show any permit for the transport of the same. The truck was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PA and a first information report was lodged at Police Station, Mubarikpur, on 12th January, 1983, at 8.15 a.m. The first information report is Exhibit PC/1. 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 appellants were challenged and convicted as stated above.

Admittedly, the truck carrying paddy 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 on the facts and circumstances of each case whether the act would amount to a mere preparation to commit an offence or would be termed as an attempt to commit an offence. The appellants could have changed their mind at any place short of the boundary of the Union Territory, Chandigarh. So, in this situation, it cannot be said that it was an attempt to commit an offence. Mr. Harbans Singh Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants, has placed reliance on a Single Bench authority of this Court reported as Mohinder Singh and another v. State of Haryana, 1983(1) C.L.R. 76, wherein in a similar situation it was held that the act of the accused did not amount to an attempt since an option was with them to change their mind before the offence was committed. Apart from this, the defence taken up by the appellants was that they wanted to go to Kharar. That being part of the Punjab State, I think that the defence plea was incorrect. Consequently, I am of the view that the case against the appellants does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. I give the appellants the benefit of doubt and acquit them of the charge against them. The fine, if paid, would be returned to the appellants. The appellants are also entitled to have back the paddy.