(1.) THE petition of revision is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, U. A. D., by which the petitioner's appeal against his conviction and sentence Under Section 5(a) of the Assam Opium Prohibition Act, 1947, was dismissed. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Ba. 600 in default to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.
(2.) THE house in which Abdul Ali, petitioner, lived was searched on 6th January 1949. An elder brother, Abdul Savan and a younger brother, Abdul Mannan of the petitioner also lived in the same house. The Excise Sub -Inspector, who conducted the search, recovered one seer of opium from the house. There were two cakes each weighing half a seer. They were found in two brass utensils wrapped in brown paper. The two utensils were covered by a half -pant. They were placed inside the hollow of a Murah, The Murah itself was under a table in an inner room of the house occupied by the petitioner and his two brothers, Abdul Suvan, the eldest, absconded. Abdul Ali, the petitioner and Abdul Mannan were sent up for trial. Both were found guilty Under Section 5 (a), Assam Opium Prohibition Act by the Magistrate, 1st class, Dibrugarh.
(3.) IN the trial Court, as also before the learned Sessions Judge, one plea raised was that opium had been planted in the house by some one. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not pressed this plea before us. The circumstances under which the opium was recovered, its quantity, the place where it was kept and the manner in which it was deliberately concealed, all lead irresistibly to the conclusion that planting was completely out of question. The learned Counsel has raised only one contention. He argues that the mere fact that opium was recovered from the house in which the petitioner lived was no evidence or proof of the fact that the accused was in possession of the opium. There was nothing for him, therefore, to account for Under Section 28 of the Act. There is considerable force in this contention.