LAWS(P&H)-1971-8-50

RACHHPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On August 06, 1971
Rachhpal Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE interesting question of law arising in this criminal revision turns on the nice and subtle distinction which divides mere preparation from an attempt to commit an offence. The matter is before us on a reference and the issue arises in the particular context of the export of prohibited commodities in violation of the Punjab Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order, 1966, promulgated under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purposes of the law point are in a narrow compass. A police picket had detected the Petitioner whilst driving his bullock cart along the kutcha path leading from village Balaur in the State of Haryana towards village Jharoda situated in the State of Delhi. It is the prosecution case itself as appearing in the evidence of Phul Singh (P.W. 2) that the border of the State of Delhi was at a distance of approximately one mile from the spot when the Petitioner was apprehended. The cart driven by the Petitioner contained 540 kilograms of Bajra and he did not have any permit to export the same from the State of Haryana to the State of Delhi. He was arrested for the infraction of the Punjab Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order, 1966, whereby the export of Bajra to a place outside the State had been prohibited and in the subsequent trial that followed the Petitioner was convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced thereunder. This conviction and sentence on an appeal was affirmed by the Sessions Judge. The present revision directed against the conviction abovesaid came up before me sitting singly. As the issues raised presented some difficulty and were of considerable importance, the matter was referred by me for decision by a Division Bench.

(3.) THE line that divides the acts of preparation from that of an attempt to commit an offence is invariably thin. It has given rise to a conflict of judicial opinion. Dr. Glanville L. Williams in his celebrated work on the Criminal Law notice this succinctly in the following terms: