BAKHSHISH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bakhshish Singh and Ram Lal appellants have by way of this appeal challenged the order of the Sessions Judge, Ropar, dated 6th August, 1983, convicting and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 150 each; in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month each, under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

(2.) On the intervening night of 14th and 15th December, 1982, at about 1 a.m. PW5 Gurpal Chand Sub-Inspector of Food and Supplies and Assistant Sub-Inspector Ashok Pun arranged a nakabandi party at Beholpur barrier when truck No. PUR 8452 came from the side of Raipur village. A signal was given to the driver to stop the truck. Thetruck was driven by Bakhshish Singh appellant while Ram Lal appellant was sitting by his side. The truck was stopped and 15 bags of paddy each weighing 70 kilos and some loose pota toes were found in it. Neither of the appellants was in a position to show any permit to the nakabandi party for carrying the paddy outside the State of Punjab. Since vide notification No. GSR.92.GA.55/S-3/81 published on 23rd 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 chalaned, convicted and sentenced as above.

(3.) Admittedly the truck was apprehended at a short distance from the boundary of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The question which, therefore, calls for determination is as to whether the presence of the truck at a short distance from the Union Taritory, Chandigarh, would amount to an attempt to commit an offence. There is a thin line between preparation for an offence and to attempt to commit an offence. It has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case whether the would amount to a mere preparation to commit an offence or can 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 of Chandigarh. So, in this situation it cannot be said that it was an attempt to commit an offence. Mr. R.S. Ghai, learned counsel for the appellants, has placed reliance on a Single Bench authority of this Court reported as Mohinder Singh and another v. Stare of Haryana 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.