STATE Vs. BADRUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BADARUDDIN was convicted of offences under Section 9(a), Opium Act, and under Section 60(a), U.P. Excise Act. The conviction was upheld on appeal. He has come up to this Court in revision.

(2.) THE facts found by the Court below are that on the search of his house at 7 P.M. on 24th July 1948, a seer of opium, three -quarter seer of Bhang, about half chantank of Ganja and about 3 1/2 bottle full of liquor were recovered by Shri R.S. Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted the search in the presence of Shri Usman Ali, Station Officer, Excise Inspector and a few other persons, who were not examined as witnesses.

(3.) THE conviction under Section 60(a), U.P. Excise Act is bad as under Section 70, U.P. Excise Act a Court cannot take cognisance of such an offence without the complaint or report of the Collector or an Excise Officer authorised by him in that behalf. This case was reported by the Station Officer and not by the Excise Officer, and therefore, the Magistrate could not have legally taken cognisance of the offence under Section 60(a), U.P. Excise Act.