In this case the accused was charged under s. 3, Egress and Internal Movement {Control) Ordinance 2005 and was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment by the Munsiff Magistrate, Ranbirsinghpura. On appeal, the leaned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction, but reduced the sentence to three months rigorous imprisonment.

[2] The woman (accused) was arrested at place in the state territory which was at a distance of 160 yards from the border the woman, it is alleged, was going towards the border with the intention of crossing over to Pakistan. The only question in this case is as to whether an offence under S. 3, Egress and Internal Movement(Control) Ordinance 2005 has been brought home to her. The learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that the accused was guilty only of an attempt to commit the said offence. But I am afraid I cannot agree with him even to this extent. Before the commission of an offence, an accused has got to go through three preliminary stages first that of intention to commit the offence, secondly preparation to commit and thirdly, attempt to commit it. Mere intention to commit an offence is not punishable by the Ranbir P. C. Nor is preparation to commit it. It is only when the preparation merges itself in attempt that the act becomes punishable by law.

[3] In this case we have the statement of the accused that she had intended to go to Pakistan and that she was moving towards the border and it is in evidence that when she had 160 yards more to cover, she was arrested. It is obvious from this statement that actual offence had not been committed. Was her moving towards the border an attempt or mere preparation? It is clear that moving towards the border is by itself no offence. The offence will be said to have been committed when the border is crossed. If an accused is arrested on the border while trying to cross over, it shall be called an attempt, but if an accused is moving towards the border and has yet a good bid of distance to cover, can it be said to be an attempt or a mere preparation? I think it is mere preparation and not an attempt and that too for the simple reason that before actually reaching the border line, the woman (accused may have changed her mind and repented her action and come back.

[4] The section to my mind is designed to deal with the action of those persons who make an attempt to cross the border without permission.

There can be no presumption that anybody who moves towards the border wants to cross over. Rather the offence would commence only when a step is taken towards crossing the border. In this case such a commencement had not taken place. In an old Madras case, Queen-Empress v. Ramakka, 8 Mad. 5 and Palani v. Sivalinga 8 Mad. 6, where

"a woman with the intention of committing suicide by throwing herself in a well actually ran towards it when she was seized by a person, it was held that she was not guilty of an attempt to commit suicide, because she might have changed her mind and she was caught before she did anything which might be regarded as the comment, of the offence."

In Narayanaswamy Pillai v. Emperor, A.I.R 1932 Mad. 507 the accused was found traveling in a bus to Tranquebar carrying 165 tolas of 0pium which somebody had given to him at Chidambaram with instructions to meet him at a place in French Territory and to give it to him. The accused in this case was charged under s. 7 read with s. 20, Dangerous Drugs Act. In this case it was held by Walsh J. that "there was no attempt to commit the crime but mere preparation for its committal." The learned Judge in the concluding portion of his judgment states that "It seems to me that he (accused) must be given the benefit of doubt that he might have repented of his intention before reaching French Territory." There is no reason why I should not give the benefit of doubt to the woman that she might also repented of her action of going to Pakistan territory before she had reached the border whic