BISAHULAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted for possession of opium, punishable under section 9 (a) of the Opium Act, and has been sentenced to three months rigorous' imprisonment.

(2.) IT has been found by both the Courts below that when the house of the petitioner was searched, a Dabba (small box), containing raw opium, was recovered from behind the idol of Shri Hanumanji. In fact, this was admitted by the accused. His plea was that his school going son found it lying on the road somewhere and it was he who put it behind the idol. The learned trial Magistrate as also the appellate Court have disbelieved the defence; in my opinion, rightly. IT is unnecessary to repeat the reasons stated by the appellate Court in detail.

(3.) BUT the weight of opium does not matter. In this State, it is not permissible to be in possession of any quantity of opium without a licence Shri R. K. Pandey relies on sub-rule (1) of rule 8, Part VI, of the C. P. Rules made under the Opium Act, as amended by notification No. 47, dated 10 January 1948. The sub-rule was substituted by these words: