1968 (8) TMI 204 - HC - Indian Laws

State's Revision Application Granted: Accused's Actions Deemed Attempt to Commit Offence

State Versus Parasmal and Ors.

The court allowed the State's revision application, holding that the accused's actions constituted an attempt to commit the offence under Section 420 read ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the act of the accused constituted an attempt to commit an offence under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 23(c) of the Petroleum Act, 1934.2. The distinction between 'preparation' and 'attempt' in the context of committing an offence.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the act of the accused constituted an attempt to commit an offence under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 23(c) of the Petroleum Act, 1934:The State filed a revision application against the order of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, which upheld the Munsiff Magistrate's decision to discharge the accused under the aforementioned sections. The facts revealed that the accused mixed kerosene with diesel and invited Prahlad Ram to purchase diesel the next day. The prosecution argued that the attempt to commit the offence was complete once the kerosene was mixed with the diesel, as the accused had already invited Prahlad Ram to purchase the adulterated diesel. The defense contended that the invitation alone could not constitute an attempt as the preparation was not complete until the kerosene was mixed with the diesel.The court held that the act of inviting Prahlad Ram to purchase diesel, which did not exist in the required quantity, coupled with the subsequent act of mixing kerosene, constituted a series of acts amounting to an attempt to commit the offence. The court emphasized that the term 'attempt' under Section 511 IPC should be interpreted broadly to include any act within the series of acts leading to the commission of the offence.2. The distinction between 'preparation' and 'attempt' in the context of committing an offence:The court elaborated on the three stages of committing a crime: intention, preparation, and attempt. It cited the Supreme Court's decision in Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, which clarified that an attempt begins when preparations are complete, and the offender starts doing something towards the commission of the offence. The court noted that the invitation to Prahlad Ram was part of the series of acts towards committing the offence and not merely preparation.The court further referenced the case of R. Maccrea, stating that Section 511 IPC covers acts done in the course of attempting to commit an offence, even if they are not the final act towards its completion. The court concluded that the accused's actions, including inviting Prahlad Ram and mixing kerosene with diesel, constituted an attempt to commit the offence as they were part of the series of acts leading to the offence.Conclusion:The court allowed the State's revision application, holding that the accused's actions amounted to an attempt to commit the offence under Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 23(c) of the Petroleum Act, 1934. The case was sent back to the trial court for further proceedings.