MURARI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three applications filed by Murari Lal under Sec. 482 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, involve common question of law and fact and, therefore, they are decided by a common order.

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to these applications may be stated as follows Three Trucks No. RJR 7855, RJR 4445 and RJR 4845 containing 101 bags 200 kattas and 99 bags and 4 kattas of rice respectively were checked and inspected in the night between 14/15-4-74 at Arawali Petrol Pump, Udaipur by a police party consisting of Mahesh Chandra CI., Kalyan Mal, D.S P., Gajraj Singh, Shri Madan Mohan, Addl. Distt Supply Officer and Shri Bhagwandas, Enforcement Officer. On checking it was found that the bags of rice were going to be transported to Ahmedabad beyond the territories of the State of Rajasthan without any licence or permission from a competent authority. The drivers of the trucks at first misrepresented to the police party that the bags contained potatos therein but later on they made a full disclosure of all the true facts by stating that they had brought the bags of rice in the trucks from Jaipur for being taken to Ahmedabad and that they had false documents known as 'Biltis' in their possession showing that the bags contained potatos. The police seized the trucks and the bags of rice and registered criminal cases under sec. 3 read with sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The cases were investigated into and the petitioner and five others were challaned in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, under sec. 3 read with sec. 7 of the Act and secs. 420, 468, 471 and 120-B, I.P.C The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, upon considering the police reports and the documents filed with them under sec. 173 Cr.P.C. and after giving the prosecution and the accused persons an opportunity of being heard, was of opinion that there were grounds for presuming that the accused persons had committed the aforesaid offences, which he was competent to try. He therefore, passed an order on 8th August, 1974, that charges should be framed against Rajendra and Yogesh accused under sec. 3 read with sec. 7 of the Act and under secs. 420 and 120-B, I.P.C, and the other accused persons, namely, Murari Lal, Bhagchand, Radhey Shyam and Man Mohan should be charged-sheeted under sec. 3 read with sec. 7 of the Act and secs. 420, 468, 471 and 120-B, I.P.C. Aggrieved by this order, Murari Lal petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this court by way of filing these three applications under sec. 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

(3.) HE was no doubt competent to try the accused persons for offences punishable under secs. 420, 488, 471 and 120-B, I. P. G. if upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it u/s. 173, Cr.P.C. and examining the accused persons and giving the accused an opportunity of being heard, he was of opinion that there were grounds for presuming that the accused had committed the said offences, which he was competent to try and which in his opinion would be adequately punished by him. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that even if the prosecution case is accepted at its face value, it does not establish any offence under see. 3 read with sec. 7 of the Act against the petitioner and other accused persons and that it would be a mock trial for these offences and other allied offences is allowed to proceed. In support of the above contention, Shri M.M. Singhvi for the petitioner argued before me that an attempt to commit an offence u/s. 3 read with sec. 7 of the Act widely differs from an intention to commit it and from the preparation made for its commission. According to him, the trucks were seized by the police party at Arawali Petrol Pump, Udaipur, in the night between 14 and 15th April, 1974. The place where the trucks were seized is within the territory of the State of Rajasthan and is far off from the border which separates the State of Gujarat from Rajasthan. It might be that the drivers and the cleaners of the trucks in question would have been instructed later on not to proceed further and to cross the border or that they might have themselves changed their minds and desisted from taking the trucks containing rice bags outside the territory of Rajasthan. HEnce, according to the learned counsel, the act of the accused persons in sending or sending the bags of rice in the trucks to Ahmedabad did not amount to an attempt to commit an offence under sec. 3 read with sec, 7 of the Act because before the actual completion of the offence the offenders could prevent its completion by changing their minds and by not allowing the trucks to cross the territory of the State of Rajasthan. Reliance in support of the above proposition was placed on an authority of the Supreme Court of India Malkiat Singh vs. State of Punjab(l), wherein their Lordships on almost similar facts were pleased to make the following observations "The test for determining whether the act of the appellants constituted an attempt or preperation is whether the overt acts already done are such that if the offender changes his mind and does not proceed further in its progress further in its progress the acts already done would be completely harmless In the present case it is quite possible that the appellants may have been warned that they had no licence to carry the paddy and they may have changed their mind at any place between Samalkha Barrier and the Delhi-Punjab boundary and not have proceeded further in their journey. Sec. 8 of the Essential Commodities Act States that "any person who attempts to contravene, or abets a contravention of, any order made under sec. 3 shall be deemed to have contravened that order " But there is no provision in the Act which makes a preparation to commit an offence punishable. It follows therefore that the appellants should not have been convicted under sec. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act." Consequently, I am unable to hold that the mere seizure of the bags of rice at a place far off from the borders of Gujarat and Rajasthan from the trucks at Arawali Petrol Pump, Udaipur, amounts to an offence to commit a crime under sec. 3 read with sec. 7 of the Act and Order. A greater degree of determination to commit an offence is required in 'attempt' in comparison to the degree of determination that is required for a preparation to commit it. HEnce on this ground also the impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, dated 8-8-1974 is unsustainable in the eye of law so far as it relates to the framing of the charge against the petitioner and others under sec. 3 read with sec. 7 of the Act.