Court overturns confiscation order and penalty for transporting goods without vouchers. Distinction between preparation and attempt clarified.

The court set aside the order for confiscation of silver coins and imposition of a penalty on the appellants for transporting goods without prescribed transport vouchers. The court found that the appellants, intercepted with the silver coins, had not taken immediate steps to transport the goods to the specified area without the necessary transport vouchers. The court emphasized the distinction between preparation and attempt in committing an offense, ruling that interception at the preparatory stage did not constitute an attempt. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the confiscation order and penalty were overturned.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confiscation of silver coins and imposition of penalty for transporting goods without prescribed transport vouchers.

Analysis:
The judgment involves the appeal against the order for the confiscation of 525 silver coins and imposition of a penalty on the appellants for transporting specified goods to Bombay without the necessary transport vouchers. The Collector's adjudicating order highlighted that the Preventive Officers intercepted the appellants along with the silver coins valued at Rs. 14,175. The Show Cause Notice indicated that the appellants admitted their intention to transport the goods to Bombay, a specified area, without the required transport vouchers. The appellant contended that the goods were meant for sale at the local Sarrafa Market in Kanpur and argued that the mere intention to transport the goods to Bombay should not constitute an attempt. The appellant cited legal precedents to support their defense, emphasizing the distance between Kanpur and Bombay as a crucial factor in determining the attempt to transport the goods.

The Customs Act, 1962, specifically Section 113(l) and Section 11K, provide for the confiscation of specified goods if any provisions are contravened. The judgment highlighted that both Bombay and silver coins were declared as specified area and goods, respectively. The Collector's order emphasized that transportation consists of both origin and destination, and initiation of transportation to a specified area without necessary transport vouchers constitutes an offense. The judgment referred to a similar case where the court held that the movement of specified goods without transport vouchers did not attract penal provisions, emphasizing the distinction between preparation and attempt in committing an offense.

The judgment further discussed legal principles regarding attempts to commit a crime, emphasizing that acts immediately connected with the commission of the offense constitute an attempt. The court analyzed the distance between Kanpur and Bombay, over 1000 km apart, and emphasized that possession of a railway ticket alone did not go beyond the preparation stage. The judgment cited legal definitions and precedents to establish that an attempt requires acts reasonably approximate to the commission of the offense. The court concluded that interception at the preparatory stage, before boarding a train to Bombay, did not constitute an attempt to transport the silver coins into the specified area without transport documents.

In light of the analysis, the court set aside the order for confiscation and penalty, allowing the appeal based on the finding that there was no attempt at the particular stage when the appellants were intercepted, as they had not taken immediate steps to transport the silver coins to the specified area without the necessary transport vouchers.

---