K.P.S.SANDHU, J. - (1.) KULDIP Singh and Santa Singh, two appellants, have challenged their conviction and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 each, in default further three months' rigorous imprisonment, under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act recorded by the Special Judge Ropar vide his order dated 6th October, 1983.
(2.) ON the night between 4th and 5th November, 1982, both the appellants were apprehended by P.W. Baljinder Singh Inspector of Food and Supplies, Head Constable Ram Sarup other officials. The appellants were carrying 140 quintals and 50 killograms of rice in 144 bags in truck No. PUR. 6265. Kuldip Singh appellant was driving the truck while Santa Singh appellant was sitting by his side. The appellants were carrying the rice on a permit valid to carrying 100 quintals of rice. The bags of rice were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit P.B. Both the appellants -were arrested and formal first information report Exhibit P E. was recorded at Police Station, Kharar, on 5th November, 1982, at 230 A.M. Since vide notification No. GSR -92/GA/55/S -3/81, dated 22nd October, 1981, rice was declared as an essential commodity and the movement of the same outside Punjab from the State of Punjab was 84 an offence, the appellants were challaned and of convicted as stated above. Admittedly, the truck was apprehended near village Bilongi which is Punjab Territory and which is far -off from Delhi. The question which, therefore, calls for determination -is as to whether the presence of the truck in Punjab territory and at a far -off distance from Delhi would amount to an attempt on the part of the appellants or would be just preparation. There is a thin line between preparation for an offence and attempt to commit an offence. It has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case whether their act would amount to a mere preparation to commit an offence or would be termed as an attempt to commit an offence. The appellants could have changed their mind at any place within the State of Punjab Short of Delhi. So, in this situation it cannot be said that it was an attempt to commit an offence. Mr. Baljinder Singh learned counsel for the appellants, has placed reliance on a pa Single Bench authority of this Court reported ha as Mohinder Singh and another v. State of the Haryana1, wherein in a similar situation it was held that the act of the accused did not amount to an attempt since an option was with them to change their mind before the offence was committed. Mr. H.S. Sethi, learned counsel for the State, has not been able to cite any authority to the contrary. Resultantly, I allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants. The fine, if recovered, would be refunded to the appellants. The appellants would also be entitled to get back the paddy. Appeal allowed. 1. 1983(1) C.L.R.76.;