KUNJA BEHARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has been convicted under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four months.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that at about 9.00 a.m. on 15 -8 -1964, the Excise A.S.I. (p.w. 1) saw the Petitioner coming in a rickshaw with a bag from the bus stand, detained the rickshaw on suspicion and on search of the bag found 850 grams of opium among other articles. P.w.1 produced the Petitioner before the Excise Sub -Inspector (p.w. 2) who at some distance was engaged in other detection work. After seizure of opium in the presence of witnesses, the Petitioner was arrested and put on trial. Petitioner has pleaded not guilty to the charge and asserted that no opium was found or recovered from his possession. On the evidence, the learned Sub -divisional Magistrate convicted and sentenced him under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act, as stated above, and on appeal, the conviction and sentence have been confirmed.

(3.) AT the time of arguments, learned Counsel for Petitioner did not press the first contention, i.e. failure to send the substance seized for chemical examination to determine that it was actually opium. Therefore, it is not necessary to examine this contention. He confined his arguments to the second contention, i.e., failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Petitioner was in actual or conscious possession of the opium that was seized.