http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: MALKIAT SINGH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/11/1968

BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. SHAH, J.C. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1970 AIR  713            1959 SCR  (2) 663  1969 SCC  (1) 157  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1972 SC1610  (8)  D          1973 SC  62  (7)  E          1980 SC1111  (30)  RF         1986 SC  63  (30)

ACT: Essential  Commodities  Act (10 of 1955), ss. 3  and  7  and punjab  Paddy (Export Control) Order, 1959,  para.  3--Paddy consigned  from  Punjab   to  Delhi--Truck  carrying   paddy stopped  by police within Punjab State-Whether  any  offence committed by driver of truck.

HEADNOTE: In exercise of the powers conferred by s. 3 of the Essential Commodities  Act, 1955, the Central  Government  promulgated the Punjab Paddy (Export Control) Order, 1959.  Paragraph  3 of  the Order prohibited the export of or attempt to  export paddy from any place within the State of Punjab to any place outside the State except under a valid permit.     Paddy,  booked  by a firm in Punjab to  a  consignee  to Delhi,  was  carried’  in  a  lorry  driven  by  the   first appellant.  The lorry was stopped by  the police at a  place which was 32 miles from Delhi, that is, inside the State  of Punjab (the Punjab-Delhi boundary was 18 miles from  Delhi), and  the appellants, along with others, were prosecuted  and convicted  for  an  offence  under s.  7  of  the  Essential Commodities Act. In appeal to this Court,     HELD:  No offence has been committed by  the  appellants nor  was there an attempt to commit an offence. [667 G]     As the paddy was seized well inside the Punjab boundary, there  was no export of paddy outside the State  of  Punjab. It was also possible that the appellants might have  changed their  minds at any place between the place of  seizure  and the  State boundary.  The acts of the appellant  then  would only constitute preparation and not  an  attempt  to  commit the  offence  of export, because, the test  for  determining whether  acts  constitute.  merely preparation  and  not  an attempt is whether the overt acts already done are such that if  the  offender  changes his mind  and  does  not  proceed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

further, the acts already done would be completely harmless. [666 F--H; 667 D---E]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 186  of 1966.     Appeal  by  special leave from the  judgment  and  order dated November 4, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in  Criminal Revision  No.  263 of 1965 and Criminal Misc.  Nos.  224  of 1965. Pritam Singh Safeer, for the appellants. Harbans Singh and R.N. Sachthey, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Punjab High Court dated November 4. 1965 by  which  Criminal Revision petition No. 263  of  1965  and Criminal Miscellaneous case No. 224 of 1965 were dismissed. 664     The case of the prosecution is that on October 19,  1961 Sub Inspector Banarasi Lal of Food and Supplies  Department’ was  present at Smalkha Barrier along with  Head   Constable Badan  Singh and others.  The appellant Malkiat  Singh  then came  driving  truck  no. P.N.U. 967.  Babu  Singh  was  the cleaner  of that truck.  The truck carried 75 bags of  paddy weighing  about  140  maunds.  As the export  of  paddy  was contrary to law, the Sub Inspector took into possession  the truck  as  also the bags of paddy. It is  alleged  that  the consignment of paddy was  booked  from Lakerkotla on October 18,  1961  by  Qimat Rai on  behalf  of  Messrs   Sawan  Ram Chiranji  Lal.  The consignee of the paddy was Messrs   Devi Dayal Brij Lal of Delhi.  It is alleged that Qimat Rai  also gave a letter, Ex. P-3 addressed to the consignee Sawan  Ram and  Chiranji  Lal  were  partners  of  Messrs.   Sawan  Ram Chiranji  Lal and they were also prosecuted.  In the  trial; court  Malkiat Singh admitted that he was driving the  truck which’  was loaded with 75 bags of paddy and the  truck  was intercepted  at  Samalkha Barrier.   According  to  Mallfiat Singh,  he was given the paddy by the Transport  Company  at Malerkotla  for  being transported to Delhi.  The  Transport Company also gave  him a letter assuring him that it was  an authority   for  transporting  the  paddy.   But  it   later transpired that it was a personal letter from’ Qimat Rai  to the Commission agents at Delhi and that it was not a  letter of  authority.  Babu Singh admitted that he was  sitting  in the  truck as a cleaner. The trial court convicted  all  the accused’  persons,  but on appeal  the  Additional  Sessions Judge set aside the conviction of Sawan Ram and Chiranji Lal and  affirmed  the conviction of Qimat Rai and  of  the  two appellants.  The appellants took the matter in revision   to the  High Court but the revision petition was  dismissed  on November 4, 1965.     It is necessary at this stage to reproduce the  relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act 10 of 1955). Section 3 (1 ) is to the following effect:                     "3. (1) If the Central Government is  of               opinion  that it is necessary or expedient  so               to  do for maintaining or increasing  supplies               of  any  essential commodity or  for  securing               their      equitable     distribution      and               availability  at fair prices, it may by  order               provide  for  regulating  or  prohibiting  the               production,  supply and  distribution  thereof               and trade and commerce therein."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

             Section 7 states:                     "7.  (1 ) If any person contravenes  any               order made under section 3--               (a) he shall be punishable--                     (i)  in the ease of an order  made  with               reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of  sub-               section  (2)  of that                   665.               section,  with imprisonment for a  term  which               may  extend  to  one year and  shall  also  be               liable to fine, and                       (ii)  in the case of any other  order,               with imprisonment for a term which may  extend               to  three  years and shall also be  liable  to               fine:                       Provided  that  if  the  Court  is  of               opinion that a sentence of fine only will meet               the ends of justice, it may, for reasons to be               recorded, refrain from imposing a sentence  of               imprisonment; and                       (b)  any property in respect of  which               the  order has been contravened or  such  part               thereof  as the Court may deem fit  including,               in   the   case  of  an  order   relating   to               foodgrains,   any   packages,   coverings   or               receptacles  in which they ’are found and  any               animal,  vehicle, vessel or  other  conveyance               used in carrying foodgrains shall be forfeited               to the Government:                       Provided  that  if  the  Court  is  of               opinion  that  it is not necessary  to  direct               forfeiture in respect of the whole or, as  the               case  may be, any part of the property or  any               packages,  coverings or receptacles   or   any               ’animal, vehicle, vessel or other  conveyance,               it  may, for reasons to be  recorded,  refrain               from doing so.                       (2 ) If any person to whom a direction               is  given under clause (b) of sub-section  (4)               of   section  3  fails  to  comply  with   the               direction   he   shall  be   punishable   with               imprisonment  for a term which may  extend  to               three years, or with fine, or with both."                     By  section  2 of Punjab Act No.  34  of               1959  the  Punjab  Legislature  added  a   new               section, s. 7-A in the Central  Act No. 10  of               1955 which reads as follows:                       "Forfeiture  of certain property  used               in  the commission of  the  offence.--Whenever               any  offence relating to foodstuffs  which  is               punishable under section 7 has been committed,               the court shall direct that all the  packages,               coverings   or  receptacles  in   which   ’any               property liable to be forfeited under the said               section   is  found  and  all   the   animals,               vehicles,  vessels or other conveyances  used’               in   carrying  the  said  property  shall   be               forfeited to the Government."                     On   January   3,   1959   the   Central               Government   promulgated  the   Punjab   Paddy               (Export  Control) Order. 1959 in  exercise  of               the powers conferred by s. 3 of the  Essential               Commodities  Act. 1955.  Para 2 of this  Order               states:                       "2.   Definitions.--In   this   Order,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

             unless the context otherwise requires,--               666                    (a) ’export’ means to take or cause to be               taken  out  of any place within the  State  of               Punjab to any place outside the State.               (b) ’paddy’ means rice in husk;                    (c)   ’State   Government’   means    the               Government of the State of Punjab."               Para 3 of the Order provides as follows:                     "Restrictions  on export  of  paddy.--No               person  shall export or attempt to  export  or               abet  the export of paddy except under and  in               accordance  with a permit issued by the  State               Government  or ’any officer authorised by  the               State Government in this behalf:                     Provided  that nothing contained  herein               shall apply to the export of paddy,--                   (i) not exceeding five seers in weight  by               a  bona fide traveler as part of his  luggage;               or                   (ii) on Government account; or                  (iii) under and in accordance with Military               Credit Notes."     The question to be considered in this appeal is  whether upon  the  facts found by the lower courts any  offence  has been  committed by the appellants.  It is not disputed  that the truck carrying the paddy was stopped at Samalkha Barrier which is 32 miles from Delhi.  It is also not disputed  that the  Delhi-Punjab  boundary was, at the  relevant  point  of time,  at about the 18th mile from Delhi.  It  is  therefore evident  that there has been no export of paddy outside  the State  of  Punjab in this case.  The truck with  the  loaded paddy  was  seized  at  Samalkha  well  inside  the   Punjab boundary.  It follows therefore that there was no export  of paddy  within the meaning of Para 2(a) of the  Punjab  Paddy (Export  Control)  Order, 1959.  It was  however  argued  on behalf  of the respondent that there was an attempt  on  the part of the appellants to transport paddy to Delhi, ’and  so there  was an attempt to commit the offence of  export.   In our opinion, there is no substance in this argument.  On the facts  found,  there  was  no attempt on  the  part  of  the appellants to commit the offence of export.  It was merely a preparation on the part of the appellants and as a matter of law  a  preparation for committing an offence  is  different from  attempt  to commit it.  The  preparation  consists  in devising  or arranging the means or measures  necessary  for the  commission  of  the offence.  On  the  other  hand,  an attempt  to commit the offence is a direct movement  towards the commission after preparations are made.  In order that a person may be convicted of an attempt to commit ’a crime, he must be shown first to have     667 had an intention to commit the offence, and secondly to have done  an act which constitutes the actus reus of a  criminal attempt. The sufficiency of the actus reus is a question  of law which had led to difficulty because of the necessity  of distinguishing between acts which are merely preparatory  to the commission of a crime, and those which are  sufficiently proximate to it to amount to an attempt   to commit it.   If a  man  buys  a box of matches, he cannot  be  convicted  of attempted  ,arson, however clearly it may be proved that  he intended  to  set  fire to a haystack at  the  time  of  the purchase.   Nor  can he be convicted of this offence  if  he approaches the stack with the matches in his pocket, but, if he  bends  down near the stack and lights a match  which  he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

extinguishes on perceiving that he is being watched, he  may be guilty of an attempt   to burn it.  Sir James Stephen, in his  Digest of Criminal Law, art. 50, defines an attempt  as follows:                       "’an  act done with intent  to  commit               that  crime, and forming part of a  series  of               acts   which  would  constitute   its   actual               commission  if it were not  interrupted.   The               point  at which such a series of  acts  begins               cannot  be  defined,  but  depends  upon   the               circumstances of each particular case." The  test for determining whether the act of the  appellants constituted  an attempt or preparation is whether the  overt acts already done are such that if the offender changes  his mind and does not proceed 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.  Section  8  of  the  Essential Commodities Act states  that  "any  person  who attempts  to contravene,  or  abets a contravention of,  any  order  made under  section  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 s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.       For  these reasons we allow this appeal and set  aside the conviction of the appellants under s. 7 of the Essential Commodities  Act and the sentence of fine imposed upon  each of them.   We also set aside the conviction and sentence  of Qimat  Rai and the order of forfeiture passed by  the  trial Magistrate  with  regard to 75 bags of paddy and  truck  no. P.N.U.  967.   The fines, if paid by any  of  the  convicted persons must be refunded. V.P.S.                                     Appeal Allowed. 668