RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Special Judge, Ropar, dated October 10, 1983, by which the appellants Ranjit Singh, Harchand Singh, Kesar Singh and Jagir Singh were convicted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereafter called the Act) and each of them was sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.

(2.) On the night between 9th and 10th November, 1982, at about 3.00 a.m. truck No. CHW 9595 carrying 115 quintals of paddy was intercepted by Sub. Inspector Kehar SinghT Station House Officer of Police Station Mubarakpur, who was holding nakabandi at Jagatpura Barrier between the states of Punjab and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The truck was proceeding towards Chandigarh from Punjab territory. Ranjit h, Singh appellant was driving the vehicle and Pi the rest of the appellants were sitting therein. It the truck and the paddy were taken into the possession vide memo Exhibit PA. The appellant were arrested for violation of notification No. GSR.92/GA/55/S-3/81 dated 22nd October, 1981, according to which paddy was declared as essential commodity and its movement outside the State of Punjab was prohibited. Sub-Inspector Kehar Singh (P.W. 2) sent ruqa Exhibit PC to the Police Station on the basis of which a formal First Information of Report under section 7 of the Act was registered against the appellants.

(3.) There is no dispute that the truck carrying paddy was intercepted near the said barrier at a short distance from the boundary of Union Territory Chandigarh. The vital question for determination is whether the presence of the truck near the boundary of Chandigarh amounted to an attempt to commit the offence of exporting paddy from Punjab to Chandigarh. The appellants counsel cited a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Mohinder Singh and another v. State of Baryana, wherein in somewhat similar circum stances it was held that the act of the accused did not amount to an attempt to commit the offence because an option was with them to change: their mind before the offence was committed. Similar view taken by another Single Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar and another v. State of Punjab, decided on August 8.