1932 (4) TMI 15 - HC - Indian Laws

Court distinguishes between attempt and preparation in opium possession case, setting aside conviction

Narayanaswami Pillai Versus Emperor

The court determined that the petitioner's actions did not amount to an attempt to commit an offense but were mere preparation. The judge highlighted the ... - Issues:1. Whether the petitioner's actions constituted an attempt to commit an offense or mere preparation under Section 511, I.P.C.2. Determining the legal threshold for establishing an attempt to commit an offense.3. Analyzing the specific facts of the case to determine if there was sufficient evidence of criminal intent and action towards the commission of the offense.4. Consideration of relevant case law to determine the appropriate legal interpretation of attempt versus preparation in the context of the petitioner's actions.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the distinction between an attempt to commit an offense and mere preparation in the context of the petitioner's possession of opium while traveling to French Territory. The petitioner was initially charged under the Opium Act but later under the Dangerous Drugs Act. The main contention was whether the petitioner's actions amounted to an attempt or mere preparation. The judge referred to legal commentary stating that an attempt requires an intention to commit a crime, commencement of the commission, and an act towards its commission. The judge highlighted that the dividing line between attempt and preparation can be thin and must be decided based on the facts of each case.The judge analyzed various precedents, such as Queen-Empress v. R. Makka and Queen-Empress v. Baku, to support the petitioner's argument that there was only preparation and not an attempt. The judge emphasized the importance of the locus poenitentiae, indicating that the accused might have repented before reaching French Territory. The judge also considered the absence of a criminal act done by the accused, as he was not charged with possession of opium exceeding the allowed quantity. The judge compared the case to passengers intending to smuggle contraband but deciding against it before reaching their destination, highlighting that such intentions do not constitute attempts to commit an offense under Section 511.Ultimately, the judge concluded that the petitioner's actions did not amount to an attempt, especially considering the distance the petitioner had to cover to reach French Territory and the possibility of repentance. The judge found it unnecessary to delve into the issue of proving the nature of the opium seized. Consequently, the judge allowed the revision petition, setting aside the conviction and canceling the petitioner's bail bonds.