S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) THE interesting question of law arising in this criminal revision turns on the nice and subtle distinction which divides mere preparation from an attempt to commit an offence. The matter is before us on a reference and the issue arises in the particular context of the export of prohibited commodities in violation of the Punjab Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order, 1966, promulgated under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
(2.) THE facts relevant for the purposes of the law point are in a narrow compass. A police picket had detected the Petitioner whilst driving his bullock cart along the kutcha path leading from village Balaur in the State of Haryana towards village Jharoda situated in the State of Delhi. It is the prosecution case itself as appearing in the evidence of Phul Singh (P.W. 2) that the border of the State of Delhi was at a distance of approximately one mile from the spot when the Petitioner was apprehended. The cart driven by the Petitioner contained 540 kilograms of Bajra and he did not have any permit to export the same from the State of Haryana to the State of Delhi. He was arrested for the infraction of the Punjab Coarse Grains (Export Control) Order, 1966, whereby the export of Bajra to a place outside the State had been prohibited and in the subsequent trial that followed the Petitioner was convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and sentenced thereunder. This conviction and sentence on an appeal was affirmed by the Sessions Judge. The present revision directed against the conviction abovesaid came up before me sitting singly. As the issues raised presented some difficulty and were of considerable importance, the matter was referred by me for decision by a Division Bench. Before us the merits and details of the prosecution case have not been agitated or assailed. Mr. U.D. Gour, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in support of the petition has primarily argued the point that on the established facts no offence is made out against his client and at the very highest his act amounts to preparation only which has not been made punishable under the statute with the violation of which he has been charged. It is highlighted on behalf of the Petitioner that the prosecution's own case is that the Petitioner was apprehended on a slow moving bullock -cart at a distance of one mile from the border of Delhi and he may well have been warned and may have changed his mind at any moment before crossing the border. It has been forcefully contended that the facts proved do not constitute an attempt to commit the offence alleged.
(3.) THE line that divides the acts of preparation from that of an attempt to commit an offence is invariably thin. It has given rise to a conflict of judicial opinion. Dr. Glanville L. Williams in his celebrated work on the Criminal Law notice this succinctly in the following terms: No exahaustive test can be stated: the only general rule is that mere 'preparation' for the crime is not enough -but this is only the proximity rule in negative form. So also is a rule stated in terms of 'remoteness. 'Acts remotely leading towards the commission of an offence are not to be considered as attempts to commit it, but acts immediately connected with it are,' Such nebulous formulations lead one to look at specific decisions in the hope of further enlightenment. The authorities will be found to be in some confusion.;