https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273560 The court determined that the respondent's actions constituted an attempt to transport grain in contravention of the Essential Commodities Act. The court held that the respondent's act, interrupted by authorities, met the criteria of an attempt under Section 7. Additionally, the court found Clause 3 of the U.P. Wheat (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1940, to be valid under the Constitution, as it aimed to regulate wheat movement for fair distribution. The court convicted the respondent, imposing a fine and imprisonment, and forfeited the grain to the State. en-us Tue, 26 Sep 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jul 2018 16:05:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273560 The court determined that the respondent's actions constituted an attempt to transport grain in contravention of the Essential Commodities Act. The court held that the respondent's act, interrupted by authorities, met the criteria of an attempt under Section 7. Additionally, the court found Clause 3 of the U.P. Wheat (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1940, to be valid under the Constitution, as it aimed to regulate wheat movement for fair distribution. The court convicted the respondent, imposing a fine and imprisonment, and forfeited the grain to the State. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Sep 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273560