NOOR BIBI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the accused was charged under Section 3, Egress and Internal Movement (Control) Ordinance 2005 and was sentenced to six month's rigorous imprisonment by the Munsiff Magistrate, Ranbirsinghpura. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction, but reduced the sentence to three months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE woman (accused) was arrested at a place in the state territory which was at a distance of 160 yards from the border the woman, it is alleged, was going towards the border with the intention of crossing over to Pakistan. The only question in this case is as to whether an offence under Section 3, Egress and Internal Movement (Control) Ordinance 2005 has been brought home to her. The learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that the accused was guilty only of an attempt to commit the said offence. But I am afraid I cannot agree with him even to this extent. Before the commission of an offence, an accused has got to go through three preliminary stages first that of intention to commit the offence, secondly preparation to commit and thirdly, attempt to commit it. Mere intention to commit an offence is not punishable by the Ranbir P. C. Nor is preparation to commit it. It is only when the preparation merges itself in attempt that the act becomes punishable by law.

(3.) THE section to my mind is designed to deal with the action of those persons who make an attempt to cross the border without permission. There can be no presumption that anybody who moves towards the border wants to cross over. Rather the offence would commence only when a step is taken towards crossing the border. In this case such a commencement had not taken place. In an old Madras case, Queen-Empress v. Ramakka, 8 Mad. 5 and Palani v. Sivalinga, 8 Mad. 6, where