( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the State Government against an, order dated the 6th May, 1960 of the learned Sessions Judge, Oral, acquitting the respondent Ram Charan of an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 3 of U. P. Wheat (Restriction on movement) Order, 1940, (hereinafter referred to as the Order ).

( 2 ) AT about 5-30 p. m. on the 19th June, 1959 Ram Gharan transposed in four bullock carts 72 bags of gujai containing 18 per cent of wheat from the shop of the firm Mangli Prasad Bimal ghand of Kalpi to the Kalpi ferry at the river Jamuna. The bags were then loaded in a boat which was rowed towards the opposite bank of the river. When the boat was midstream Assistant marketing Inspector Om Prakash Bajpai who was on duty at the opposite bank saw the boat and suspecting that the bags contained wheat got the boat stopped midstream. The Senior Marketing inspector Sri C. B. Dube was called and he mads an analysis of the grain. It was found that the proportion of wheat in the mixture was 18 per cent as against 2 per cent the movement of which was permissible under the Order. The boat was brought back to the Kalpi side of the river and om Prakash Bajpai lodged the written report Ex. Ka-2 at the police station at 7-30 p. m. During the time Om Prakash had gone to the police station Ram Charan slipped away. He could not be arrested and proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 Cr. P. C were taken against him. Subsequently he surrendered in court.

( 3 ) THE case for the prosecution was that Ram Charan by attempting to transport the mixture of grain containing more than 18 per cent of wheat contravened the provisions of the Order and committed am offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

( 4 ) THE trial court found the respondent Ram Charan guilty and sentenced him to six months R. I. and Rs. 100/- fine. The 72 bags of grain were ordered to be forfeited to the State.

( 5 ) IN appeal the learned Sessions Judge held that as the boat in which the 72 bags of grain were being transported was intercepted midstream the matter did not go beyond preparation for transporting the grain and therefore no offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was committed.

( 6 ) THE contention on behalf of the State is that the act of the respondent amounted to ah "attempt" to transport the grain from one block to another in contravention of the Order and thereby he committed an offence under Section 7.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, while disputing the above contention urged that Clause (3) of the Order was hit by Articles 19 (1) (g), 3 01, 302 and 303 of the Constitution. Section 511, I. P. C. provides :

"whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with transportation or imprisonment or to cause such an offence to be committed and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence shall be punished. . . . . . . . . . . . . . "

( 8 ) THERE are four stages in every crime : (1) the intension to commit; (2) the preparation to commit; (3) the attempt to commit; (4) and if the third stage is successful the commission itself. Sometimes there is a very fine distinction between preparation and attempt, and it is difficult to say where preparation ends and attempt begins. The difficulty is illustrated by the various decisions on the point. The earliest decision of this Count is the Queen v. Ramsarun Chowbey, 4 nwp 46. In that case the accused intending to procure a forged document had directed a servant to purchase blank stamped paper on which the document might be executed, and to describe himself to the stamp vendor as the person who the accused wished it to be deemed was the executant of that document, and the stamp vendor had endorsed upon the bond an endorsement stating that he had sold the stamped paper to the person personated by the servant. The accused was convicted of an attempt to forge a valuable security. Sir Charles Turner held that the