SUA DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been filed by four persons, Sua Das, Balu, Hazari and Sriram, who have been convicted under S. 9 (a), Opium Act for the unlawful possession of opium. Suadas has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500. Each of the remaining three applicants has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine Rs. 200. According to the prosecution, the Excise Department received information that, somebody from village Tabiji was dealing in illicit opium. A bogus purchase was arranged. With the assistance of Pohumal bogus purchaser the four applicants were arrested with a good deal of opium on the night of 30th-31st May 1949 at mile No. 7 Ajmer-Beawar road. The four applicants were prosecuted jointly under the Opium, Act. Suadas accused admitted the recovery of opium from his possession, and pleaded guilty. Balu accused pleaded that, the opium belonged to Suadas, and Balu accused has been hired as a labourer for weighing the goods. Sriram and his son Hazari denied any connection with the opium. They said that, they went to the spot from their neighbouring fields. The learned Magistrate held that, all the four accused were in unlawful possession of opium. They were therefore all convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Their appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. They have now come to this Court in revision.

(2.) The main contention in this revision is that the trial of the case was illegal inasmuch as the case was tried as a summons case, although the trial should have been as that for a warrant case. The trial of the case commenced on 1st June 1949. Statements of the accused persons were taken as in a summons case. The case was decided on 7th March 1950. The case was tried throughout as a summons case. Section 9 (a), Opium Act provides for a sentence exceeding imprisonment for six months. So ordinarily the case ought to have been tried as a (2) warrant case. But the case was tried as a summons case under the provisions of the Punjab Public Safety Act as applied to the State of Ajmer.

(3.) Under notification of the Government of India dated 31st December 1947, the Punjab Public Safety Act, 1917, was extended to the State of Ajmer. Section 35 of the Punjab Public Safety Act 1947 provided for the trial of offences in a dangerously disturbed areas as summons cases. A notification was issued in due course for the State of Ajmer declaring the whole of the province as a dangerously disturbed area. It was under these circumstances that the present case, which should have ordinarily been tried as a warrant case, was tried by the learned Magistrate as a summons case. No exception has been taken to the commencement of the trial as a summons case on 1st June 1949. But it has been urged that as a result of subsequent developments the case could no longer be tried as a summons case.