BASANTISINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions arise out of the same case and are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE short facts leading to this case are that on 17 -7 -55 a motor car travelling on Bombay -Agra Road was stopped by an Excise Inspector at Shajapur. On being searched it revealed some opium. All the five persons travelling in the Car were arrested and challaned before the First Class Magistrate, Shajapur, who convicted all the accused under Section 9(a) and (b) of the Opium Act. On appeal by the accused, their conviction and sentences were upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur. Now the accused have filed this revision.

(3.) ONE is that the procedure adopted by the trial Court under Section 251 -A of the Criminal Procedure Code was wrong. The report filed before the Magistrate was by an Excise Officer and that it should have been treated as a complaint and therefore the Magistrate should have proceeded under Section 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code. But there is no force in the argument, because Section 20 of the Opium Act says -that when an officer of the Excise files a report before a Magistrate it would be treated as if it is a report made by the Police Officer under Section 190 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this view of the matter I can not find any fault with the manner in which the accused were tried,