Mere preparation is not a criminal attempt where the accused never made a direct move toward export.

Transporting paddy within Punjab did not amount to export under the control order because export required movement outside the State boundary, and the truck was stopped before crossing that boundary. The conduct amounted only to preparation, not a punishable attempt, because criminal attempt requires intention plus an overt act that is a direct and proximate movement toward the offence. Section 8 treated attempt or abetment as contravention, but the statute did not punish mere preparation. On those facts, liability under the Essential Commodities Act did not arise.

---

---

Issues: Whether transporting paddy within Punjab before reaching the State boundary amounted to export, or at least an attempt to export, so as to attract punishment under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Analysis: Export under the control order required taking paddy outside the State of Punjab. The truck was intercepted well inside Punjab, before the Delhi-Punjab boundary was crossed, so there was no completed export. The act relied upon by the prosecution amounted only to preparation. A criminal attempt requires an intention to commit the offence and an overt act amounting to a direct movement towards its commission; mere preparation remains harmless if the offender stops before the proximate act. Section 8 deems an attempt or abetment to contravene an order to be a contravention, but the Act contained no provision punishing mere preparation.

Conclusion: The appellants were not liable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, because the facts showed neither export nor a punishable attempt to export.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere preparation for an offence is not punishable as an attempt unless the accused has done an act amounting to a direct and proximate movement towards the commission of the offence; where the statute deems only attempt or abetment to be a contravention, preparation remains outside its scope.

---