SYED MEHEBOOB ALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted under S. 9 (a) of the Opium Act, 1878 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to R.I. for one year.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that the Excise Sub -Inspector, Barapali (p. W. 1) was suspicious of the movements of the accused -petitioner who was regularly going towards Bolangir on Fridays from Bargarh side. On 21.8 -64 he kept waiting for the accused on the side of the road from Bargarh to Bolangir. While he was waiting for the accused, the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Sri B. N. Hota (p. w. 3) came from Bolangir side in his car. While p. w. 3 was having conversation with P. W. 1, the accused came on a motor cycle from Bargarh side towards Barpali. P. W. 1 detained him and searched the bag of the accused which the latter was carrying on his motor cycle. The bag cantained 3 kg. and 700 grams of contraband opium which was seized under seizure list (EX. 1). The plea of the accused is that no opium was recovered from his possession. He is an excise vendor. Other excise vendors were jealous of him as he raised the bid for obtaining licence for some shops and the Excise Sub -Inspector was adverse to him as he complained against him to the Superintendent of Excise. The case has been falsely foisted on him.

(3.) SO far as the first contention is concerned, the learned Courts below thoroughly examined the prosecution witnesses and accepted the search and seizure as being legal. P. W. 3 stated that P. W. 1 conducted the search in his presence. He was sitting in his car and the place of search was visible to him. He saw the opium and examined it. P. W. 1 prepared the seizure list in his presence. Before the opium was weighed, he however, left the spot after signing the seizure list. P. W. 3 is a responsible witness. It is not necessary to refer to other evidence. It is enough to say that his evidence inspires confidence. The evidence regarding search and seizure was rightly accepted by the learned Courts below.