MUKHARAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was issued upon the Deputy Commissioner, Nowgong, to show cause why the convictions and sentences imposed on the petitioner should not be set aside. The ease for the Crown was that the petitioner was travelling on the train from Pandu through Gauhati on 14th October 1947. His conduct aroused suspicion and he and his luggage were searched. In the trunks belonging to him was found 37 seers of opium. Evidence was adduced by the prosecution in support of these allegations and the learned Magistrate, believing the evidence, found the petitioner guilty Under Section 9 (a) of Act I [1] of 1878 and sentenced him under that section to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, and to pay a fine of Ea, 1,000 in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. The learned Magistrate also found the petitioner guilty Under Section 9 (c) of the said Act on the same facts, and sentenced him under that section to undergo rigorous - imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of ESection 1,000 and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. The learned Magistrate further directed that the sentences should run consecutively.

(2.) The petitioner appealed. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the learned advocate for the appellant, called for the record of the case, but did not say that the appeal would be heard, and did not pass any orders admitting the appeal. After perusing the record, the learned Sessions Judge directed that the appeal be dismissed summarily. It 13 against that order that the present rule has been obtained.

(3.) Mr. Sen for the petitioner baa pointed out that separate convictions Under Section 9 (a) and Section 9 (c) of the said Act for the same offence were not justified.