(1.) THE only question that arises for determination in this revision is whether Bhagwan Dass can be separately tried under Section 9 of the Opium Act (Act I of 1878) for two recoveries of illicit opium from his possession on the same day in pursuance of a raid organised by the police on the 9th June, 1959. If such recoveries constitute one offence, there has to be one trial. If they constitute different offences as alleged by the prosecution, there have to be separate trials as envisaged by Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This would of course be subject to be exceptions set out in that section. In this case it is urged in the alternative that the case the alternative argument as I am of the view that the recoveries constitute a single offence.
(2.) THE residential premises of Bhagwan Dass were raided by the Police on the 9th June, 1959, at 2. P. M. and opium was recovered from his person in a bag which he was carrying from his car to his house and also from a chaubara in his possession. The opinion from the chaubara was recovered in pursuance of a statement made by him under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on police interrogation. On the basis of these two recoveries, the prosecution has put up two separate challans. In one challan, the accused are Bhagwan Dass and three other persons and in the challan relating to the recovery from the chaubara, Bhagwan Dass alone in the accused.
(3.) THE present petition arises on the objection raised by Bhagwan Dass to these two separate challans. It is contended on his behalf that there has to be one challan in respect of these recoveries and one trial. He accordingly moved the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, in revision, but without success. Dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, he has moved this Court in revision.