BODU LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THE accused-applicant stands convicted Under Section 9 of Central Act I of 1878 and sentenced to undergo three months' R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of such, to undergo further R. I. for one month.

(3.) THE first point pressed in this revision on behalf of the accused-applicant is that the prosecution has failed to prove that the article recovered was 'opium' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. The article recovered has been seen by me, and is certainly nothing else but spontaneously coagulated juice of capsules of the poppy. In State v. Kaptan Singh , it has been observed as below: Opium in the form of coagulated juice of poppy is so well known in this country being widely used for medicinal and other purposes that anyone can identify it and it is unnecessary to call in an expert to establish its identity. If an Excise Inspector says that certain article is crude opium his testimony cannot be looked upon as merely an opinion of an expert and is entitled to weight as evidence even if no reasons are given for the opinion.