IN RE. UPPARI NALLANNA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision petitions are against the convictions of the accused concerned in S. T. Cs. 90, 97 and 94/68 respectively on the file of the 1st Class Magistrate, Gadwal.

(2.) On the night of 22.12.1967 the Special Deputy Collector, Mobile Check Post Mahaboobnagar on information that paddy was being smuggled to Mysore State, went along with his mobile staff consisting of H. C. 506 and some constables and were lying in wait near the road leading to Talamarri village in the Mysore State and at about 2 a.m. they found the accused in S. T. C. 94/68 coming driving 8 carts with 49 bags of paddy in them going Talamarri village and they stopped them in Nadagoni Dukki in the limits of Kutuknoor village which is two furlongs away from the Mysore border. On questioning the accused, they stated that the paddy belonged to Seetharamaiah of Pedda Tandrapad, that they were hired cart-men and were transporting the paddy from Medikunda village of Gadwal Taluk to Talamarri village of Mysore State. P.W. 1 then stopped the carts and seized the paddy bags in the presence of panchas. The same night at about 2-30 a.m. the accused concerned in S. T. C. No. 90/68 were found coming with paddy bags in their carts. They were also stopped in the same field and when questioned they stated that the Paddy bags belonged to Manik Reddy of Pedda Tandrapad village, that they were engaged to cart these bags and transport them to Talamarri in the Mysore State and these were also seized. At about the same time, the accused concerned in S. T. C. 97/68 were found coming with their carts with rice bags. They were stopped in the field known as Kommani Dukki and when questioned they stated that the paddy bags belonged to one Nagireddi and that they were transporting them from Tandirapad village to Talamarri village. These bags were also seized and the charge-sheets were filed. In support of the prosecution case, four witnesses in S. T. Cs. 90 and 94 and five in S. T. 97/68 were examined. The accused examined two witnesses in each of these cases and their contention was that the paddy belonged to D.W. 1 who was sending them from his field after harvest to his house. Disbelieving the evidence of the defence, the lower Court found the accused guilty of the charge levelled against them. This was confirmed in appeal.

(3.) The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no case of the attempted commission of offence has been made out that at best the action of the accused would only amount to preparation for the offence and as long as there was Locus Penitentiae and they could return to their places without crossing the border, it cannot be said that an offence is made out. In support of this contention, he relied on In re Bavaji, A.I.R. 1950 Madras 44, State v. Narain Singh, A.I.R. 1953 Madhya Bharat 216. B.B. Kurubet v. State of Mysore, 1962 Mad LJ (Crl.) 339, and Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1970 Supreme Court 713. What constitutes an attempt to commit an offence is pointed out in the last of the cases viz. Malkiat Slash v. State of Punjab in the following terms:-