LAXMINARAYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant in revision has been convicted under Section 9 (a) of the Indian Opium Act as amended by the Madhya Bharat Act 15 of 1955 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a year and a half and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - with further regiorous imprisonment in default. This was for the possession without licence of about 4 seers of raw opium, by the applicant in his house and seized by a raiding party consisting of excise officers, police officers and two respectables (panchas) of the locality. The applicant set up a plea that the bag containing 4 seers, or to be more precise 3 seers and 14 chhataks opium was openly taken into the house by a head constable, a member of the raiding party and planted there. This was disbelieved both by the Magistrate and by the Sessions Court.

(2.) THE applicant has come here repeating the story of planting which is of course a plea of fact, and adding the following grounds of law (1) that the Madhya Bharat Act 15 of 1955 is ultra vires of Article 254 of the Constitution even though it had been reserved for consideration by the President and his assent obtained (2) secondly, the procedure adopted for trial was one under Section 251. A Cr. P.C., which was illegal as the one in S. 252 Cr. P. C., should have been followed. The applicant has been prejudiced because he got only one opportunity to cross -examine and not two as he could have got had the proceedings been under Section 252 Cr. P. C.

(3.) ON the defence that the opium had been planted it is unnecessary to say anything as it relates to fact and has been considered by the trial Court and the appellate Court. It is significant that it was not suggested that one member of the raiding party managed to enter the house openly with the canvas bag containing 4 seers of opium. It is also neither alleged nor suggested that immediately on the recovery, the applicant himself called out that a member of the raiding party walked in with the bag and planted it in the house. Any way the story of planting was disbelieved by both the lower Courts and need not be re -agitated in this revision.