Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Mr. Mittal on the strength of the Single Bench of this Court in Harchand Singh and Anr. v. The State of Punjab, 1985 (I )Ch. L R. 167 contends that the possibility of the accused changing their mind before crossing the border cannot be ruled out and thus it was not an attempt on their part to export the wheat out of the zone but at the most, it was a preparation for doing so which is not punishable. There is sufficient force in this contention as the provisions of clause 3 of the said order prohibit the export or attempt to export or abet the export of wheat or any other wheat product from one zone to another except with the permission in writing of the Central Government or of an officer authorised in that behalf by the Central Government. In the case in hand, according to SI Kashmira Singh, the tractor trolly was apprehended about 15/20 paces from the Haryana border in the area of village Chural Kalan. Thus the reasonable possibility cannot be ruled out that the accused might have changed their mind for exporting wheat out of the Punjab zone. Therefore, it can- not be said that they had attempted to export wheat out of this zone.

11. The Apex Court also in Malkiat Singh and Anr. v. The State of Punjab, A. I. R. 1970 S.C. 713 had taken a similar view by holding under Section 3 of the Punjab Paddy (Export Control) Order, 1959 that preparation to commit an offence is not punishable but only an attempt to export paddy in punishable. In that case, a truck carrying 75 bags of paddy was intercepted at Samalicha barrier. The paddy was given to the Transport Company at Malerkotla (Punjab) for being transported to Delhi. Under these circumstances, it was held that at the most the act of the accused would amount to preparation for committing an offence of transporting the paddy and not attempt to export.