6. The question to be considered in this appeal is whether upon the facts found by the lower courts any offence has been committed by the appellants. It is not disputed that the truck carrying the paddy was stopped at Samalkha Barrier which is 32 miles from Delhi. It is also not disputed that the Delhi—Punjab Boundary was, at the relevant point of time, at about the 18th mile from Delhi. It is, therefore, evident that there has been no export of paddy outside the State of Punjab in this case. The truck with the loaded paddy was seized at Samalkha well inside the Punjab Boundary. It follows therefore that there was no export of paddy within the meaning of Para 2(a) of the, Punjab Paddy (Export Control). Order, 1959. It was however, argued on behalf of the respondent that there was an attempt on the part of the appellants to transport paddy to Delhi, and so there was an attempt to commit the offence of export. In our opinion, there is no substance in this argument. On the facts found, there was no attempt on the part of the appellants to commit the offence of export. It was merely a preparation on the part of the appellants and as a matter of law a preparation for committing an offence is different from attempt to commit it. The preparation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offence. On the other hand, an attempt to commit the offence is a direct movement towards the commission after preparations are made. In order that a person may be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime, he must be shown first to have had an intention to commit the offence, and secondly to have done an act which constitutes the actus raus of a criminal attempt. The sufficiency of the actus raus is a question of law which had led to difficulty because of the necessity of distinguishing between acts which are merely
