LexMALKIAT SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-) A MALKIAT SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB ' November S, 1968 B [J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.) 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. In exercise of the powers corlferred by s. 3 of the Essential Commodi- c ties Act, 1955, the Cen!Tal 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 D 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 df 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] E 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 - I 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 p done are such that if the offender changes his mind and does not proceed further, the acts already done would be completely harmless. [666 F-H; 667 D--E] 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 G 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 H 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. il64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969) 2 S.C.R. - 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 driv- ing truck no. P.N.U. 967. Babu S1ngh was the cleaner of that truck. The truck carried 7 5 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 Chiran ji 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 Malkiat 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 con- viction of Qimat Rai and of the two appellants. The appellants took the matter in revision to the High Court but
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.