JALADHAR SAHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to the Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Court is:

(2.) THE Patna view has prevailed in the States of Bihar and Orissa for nearly twenty-four years, and when its correctness was challenged before a Division bench of this Court in the case reported in Banchhanidhi Sahu v. The State ILR 1955 Cut 109 (E) that Bench held that there was no special reason for departing from the settled practice and that it was not necessary to refer the question to a larger Bench. The Division Bench which referred the question to the Full Bench noticed the aforesaid decision of this Court but pointed out that in that decision the amendment made to the Opium Act by Orissa Act II of 1939 was not taken into consideration and that there were sufficient grounds for referring the question to a full Bench in order to examine the correctness of the Patna view.

(3.) BEFORE discussing the legal questions I may refer to the facts of the case which are unchallenged. On 15-10-1953 as Excise Sub-Inspector (P. W. 1) on receipt of previous intimation searched the house of one Paluni Dei in village Gondia, P. S. Gondia in the Sadar Subdivision of Dhenkanal District, and recovered two packets of opium weighing one tola and forty tolas respectively, from a locked up almirah and a trunk. The key of the almirah was produced by Paluni Dei. Her husband Satyabadi was not in the house then, but the petitioner Jaladhar sahu, who is her son-in-law, was present in the house during the search. The excise Sub-Inspector arrested Paluni Dei, and just then petitioner Jaladhar admitted before him that he had brought the two parcels of opium and kept them there. He also gave a statement in writing Ext. 2 to that effect. The Excise Officer sent up for trial both Paluni Dei and the petitioner Jaladhar Sahu for unauthorised possession of opium which was punishable under Section 9 (a) of the Opium Act, 1878. The trying Magistrate convicted both of them and sentenced them to pay fines. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence of fine passed on Paluni Dei. The revision petition before this High Court was filed only by Jaladhar Sahu and it was contended that the entire case against him depended on his confession before the Excise Officer which was inadmissible.