NARAYAN CHANDRA BORAH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule has been issued to show cause why the conviction of and the sentence passed on the petitioner should not be set aside or such other or further orders should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper on grounds Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the petition.

(2.) The petitioner is a salesman in a licensed opium shop. On a surprise visit being paid to the shop by an Inspector of Excise two irregularities appear to have been noticed; 1st, that the petitioner had sold a short weight of opium to a customer, and 2nd, a quantity of opium 27 tolas 9 as in weight was found in excess of the quantity shown in the took register, and if; was found hidden in the premises. On these irregularities charges under Clauses (c) and (f), Section 9, Opium Act, were laid against the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate convicted the petitioner under both the clauses. The owner of the shop was jointly tried with the petitioner and was acquitted; and with him we are no longer occurred. Against his conviction aforesaid the. petitioner appealed to the Sessions Judge who set aside the conviction under Section 9, Clause (f), Opium Act, holding that the evidence relating to the short weight sale was not satisfactory. He, however, upheld the conviction under Section 9, Clause (c), and reduced the sentence originally passed on the petitioner.

(3.) Grounds Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the petition upon which the rule has been issued are that the petitioner was not in possession of the opium, that if he possessed it, it was possessed under a license and that the charge is defective.