- (1.)THIS is a petn. in revision on behalf of the Customs and Excise Department, Madhya Bharat State, against the order of the Sea. J, who dismissing the appeal confirmed the order of the trial Ct. Darshanlal, Ramswaroop, Lachhman, Dharamji, Surendrapratap and Munirkhan were arrested on 17-3-1949 for possessing opium under Section 6, Opium Act Samvat 1980. On 18-3-1949, the Police Shivpuri released them on bail. One Dhannulal stood surety for the appearance of the accused and executed a security bond to the total amount of Rs. 4000. As the accused did not appear on 25-4-1949 and again on 2-61949 the Superintendent Customs and Excise Department, Dist. Shivpuri made a report under Section 58, Gwalior Excise Act, to the Mag. , second class Shivpuri for the forfeiture of the security bond. The trial Ct. held that the appln. of the Customs Department was not entertainable as there is no procedure under Section 58, Excise Act, for the forfeiture of the security alone. The same order was confirmed by the Ses. J. Hence the Superintendent, Customs and Excise Department has filed this revision.
(2.)THE first question for consideration in this case is whether an appln. in respect of offences under Opium Act can be made under Section 58 excise Act. The learned Govt. Advocate who appeared on behalf of the petnr. admits that Section 58, Excise Act, is not applicable in the case of offences committed under the Opium Act. Gwalior Excise Act came into force in Samvat 1965. That Act contained provisions pertaining to opium and products of opium. But when the Opium Act came into force in Samvat 19s0 all the provisions relating to opium and products of opium contained in the Excise Act were repealed by Section 3, Opium Act, [vide Section 2 and Appen. 1, Opium Act Samvat 1980), Hence the provisions of Excise Act are no longer applicable to any of the offences committed under the Opium Act. It mast, therefore, be held that Opium Act so far as it goes is self-contained. If it does not provide for any procedure then the deficiency is to be supplied by general principles of law. The security was taken by the police under Subsection (2) of Section 19, Opium Act. The Opium Act contains no provisions with regard to the forfeiture of security. Hence in compliance with Sub-section (2) of Section 5, Cr. P. C. provisions of Cr. P. C. will govern the forfeiture of securities taken under the Opium Act {vide Emperor v. Mohd. Usman A. I. R. (20) 1933 Sind 325: (35 Cr. L. J. 128), In re Yerlagadda Venkanna A. I. R. (12) 1925 Mad. 856: (26 Cr. J, 3. 1556) and Kusum Kumari v. Corporation of Calcutta A. I. R. (24) 1937 Cal. 218: (38 Cr. L. J. 632 ). As the forfeiture of securities taken under the Opium Act is to be governed by the provisions of Cr. P. C. the order passed by the lower Cts. cannot be sustained.
(3.)I, therefore, allow the petn. and setting aside the orders of the lower Cts. direct that the case be dealt with according to law.
;