BALDEV SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALDEV Singh Appellant stands convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ - by the special Judge, Ropar, on 6th November, 1984. He appeals.

(2.) THE prosecution case is in a very narrow compass. On 10th January, 1984, Sub Inspector Gurdial Singh of Police station Mubarikpur, alongwith Assistant Sub -Inspector Satpal Singh and other police officials was on patrol duty in a Government jeep. While he was going from Zirakpur towards Sohaha at about 715 p.m. he saw a truck cross ing the Sohana barrier at a fast speed. At that time, the police party was at a distance of 70 yards from the barrier. The Sub Inspector Gurdial Singh signaled the driver of the truck to stop it but the driver did not respond to the signal and sped away towards Chandigarh side with the result that the police party chased it and successfully intercepted it beyond Gurdwara Dhanna Bhagat from where the Union Territory Chandigarh is at a distance of about 30 karams. The police party had to chase the truck for a distance of about 11/2 miles before it could be made to stop. The truck bearing registration No. CHW -4391 was being driven by Baldev Singh accused and it was found loaded with 150 bags of rice for export of which the accused had no permit. The Sub Inspector Gurdial Singh sent Ruqa Ex. PB on the basis of which first information report Ex PB/1 was registered at the police station. The truck and the bags of rice were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PA. After necessary investigation, the accused was challaned and sent up for trial. The Special Judge found a prima facie case against the accused and accordingly charged him for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) THE only contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that no case of attempted commission of offence has been made out and that at best the action of the Appellant would only amount to preparation for the offence and therefore, the Appellant had neither exported nor attempted to export rice in contravention of S. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. To buttress his argument reliance is placed on a Supreme Court decision in Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 713. What constitutes an attempt to commit an offence is pointed out in the following terms: