Attempt liability and permit regulation for essential commodities upheld where unlawful wheat movement crossed beyond mere preparation.

Transporting wheat-mixture beyond the stage of preparation, where the movement had progressed towards unlawful removal and was interrupted by an external interception, was treated as an attempt rather than a mere preparatory act, attracting liability under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Clause 3 of the U.P. Wheat (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1940. The permit requirement under Clause 3 was upheld as a regulatory measure aimed at controlling essential commodities, with the licensing discretion not found arbitrary or constitutionally uncontrolled. It was also held not to impose a direct or immediate restriction on inter-State trade under Articles 301, 302 and 303, or to violate Article 19(1)(g).

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondent's act in transporting wheat-mixture, before interception midstream, amounted to an attempt punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clause 3 of the U.P. Wheat (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1940; (ii) whether Clause 3 of the Order was void as infringing Articles 19(1)(g), 301, 302 and 303 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether the respondent's act in transporting wheat-mixture, before interception midstream, amounted to an attempt punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clause 3 of the U.P. Wheat (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1940.

Analysis: A distinction was drawn between preparation and attempt. An attempt was described as an intentional act done towards the commission of an offence which fails because of circumstances independent of the actor's volition. Applying that principle, the movement of the grain across the river had progressed beyond preparation, and the interruption by the marketing inspector did not convert it into a mere preparatory act.

Conclusion: The act amounted to an attempt, and liability under Section 7 was attracted.

Issue (ii): whether Clause 3 of the Order was void as infringing Articles 19(1)(g), 301, 302 and 303 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The permit requirement was treated as a regulatory restriction enacted under the policy of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 to secure control of production, supply, distribution, trade and commerce in essential commodities. The discretion to grant permits was held not to be arbitrary or uncontrolled in the constitutional sense. The restriction was also held to regulate intra-State movement only and not to impose a direct or immediate impediment to inter-State trade within the meaning of Article 301 or the connected Articles 302 and 303.

Conclusion: Clause 3 was upheld as constitutionally valid and not violative of Articles 19(1)(g), 301, 302 or 303.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the respondent was convicted under Section 7 read with Clause 3, and the goods were forfeited.

Ratio Decidendi: An intentional act directed towards the commission of an offence, which is frustrated by circumstances beyond the actor's control, constitutes an attempt; a regulatory permit system for essential commodities is valid where it operates under the statutory policy and does not directly impede protected trade freedoms.

---