This Article has been written by Ms. Karishma Singh , a 2nd year B.A LL.B student from Lloyd Law College
Appeal :
( Arising out of SLP ( C) no. 4888
Petitioner : Malkiat Singh & Anr
Versus
Respondent : State of Punjab
Bench : Ramaswamy, V. Shah , J. C. Grover , A. N.
Date of judgement : November 8 , 1968
Facts :
Sub-inspector Banarasi Lal of Food and Supply Department was present at Smalkha fence along with Chief of Police Badan Singh and others. Appellant Malkiat Singh then drove the number truck. P.N.U. 967. Babu Singh is the one who cleans this truck. The truck carrying 75 bags of paddy weighed about 140 maunds. Since it was illegal to export paddy, the sub-inspector took possession of the truck along with the bags of paddy . It is alleged that the shipment of paddy was placed at Lakerkotla on 18 October 1961 by Qimat Rai on behalf of Messrs. Sawan Ram Chiranji Lal. The recipient of the paddy is MM. Devi Dayal Brij Lal from Delhi. It is believed that Qimat Rai also delivered a letter, Example P-3, to the consignee Sawan Ram and Chiranji Lal who are Messrs associates. Sawan Ram Chiranji Lal and they were also prosecuted.
ARGUMENTS
By the Petitioner
This appeal is whether, based on facts determined by the courts below, the appellants have committed an offence. There is no question that the paddy stopped at Samalkha Barrier, 32 miles from Delhi. Nor is it disputed that the Delhi-Punjab boundary is, at the appropriate time, about 18 miles from Delhi. Therefore, it is clear that there is no paddy export out of Punjab in this case. The truck full of paddy was seized at the Samalkha well inside the Punjab border. Accordingly, there is no export of rice within the meaning of paragraph 2(a) of the Punjab Paddy (Export Control) Order of 1959.
By the respondent
However, the defendant’s representative argued that the appellants had attempted to transport paddy to Delhi, “and therefore there was an attempt to commit the export offence.
Comments by Judges :
In our opinion, this argument is unfounded. On the facts found, there was no attempt by appellants to commit an export offense. It is simply preparation on the part of the appellants and, as required by law, preparing to commit an offense is different from attempting to commit it. Preparation includes devising or organizing the means or means necessary to commit the offence. On the other hand, an attempt to commit an offense is a direct action towards a commission after preparation has been made. For a person to be found guilty of knowingly committing a crime, it must first be shown that he intended to commit the offence, and second, that he committed an act constituting the act of reusing a criminal attempt. The adequacy of actus reus is a legal issue posed by the need to distinguish between acts that are merely preparatory to the commission of a crime and acts that are close enough to lead to an attempt to commit a crime. present crime. commit it. If a man buys a box of matches he cannot be found guilty of arson, however it can be clearly demonstrated that he intended to burn a haystack at the time of purchase. Nor could he be found guilty of this crime if he approached the whetstone with the matches in his pocket, but if he leaned close to the whetstone and lit a match which he extinguished when he found himself being track, he may be guilty of trying to set him on fire.
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 to determine whether the appellant’s conduct constitutes intentional or premeditated conduct is whether the overt act performed is such that if the offender changes his mind and does not proceed further, the action will be taken. vi implemented will be completely harmless. In the present case, it is very likely that the appellants were warned that they did not have a permit to transport paddy and they changed their mind anywhere between the Samalkha fence and the Delhi-Punjab border and they did not continue with their steps. trip. Section 8 of the Essential Goods Act provides that “any person who attempts to disobey or encourage the disobedience of any order given under section 3 shall be deemed to have disobeyed such order”. But there is no provision of the law that makes criminal preparation punishable. Accordingly, appellants should not be convicted under s. 7 of the Essential Goods Act.
Judgement :
For the reasons stated, we allow this appeal and ignore the convictions of the appellants under s. 7 of the Essential Goods Act and fines apply to each of them. We also annulled Qimat Rai’s sentence and sentence as well as the confiscation order issued by the trial judge regarding 75 bags of rice and truck No. P.N.U. 967. Fines, if paid by one of the convicts, must be repaid.
References :
Kanoon ; https://indiankanoon.org/
Section 7 in The Essential Commodities Act , 1955
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Section 7A in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Section 8 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Ipleaders ; Difference between attempt and preparation in IPC ; https://blog.ipleaders.in/