(1.) Rule No. 493 has been issued at the instance of two persons, Ali Mia and Ismail. Rule No. 494 has been obtained by five persons, Makhlas Rahaman, Oliar Rahaman, Shafarali, Mofizulla and Nizamali. These seven persons were tried by the Sadar Sub-divisional Magistrate of Chittagong. He convicted all these seven accused persons under Section 9 of the Opium Act read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and he also convicted two of them viz., Ali Mia and Makhlas Rahaman under Clauses (c) and (e) of Section 9 of the Opium Act and the remaining five, viz., Ismail, Oliar Rahaman Shafarali, Mofizulla and Nizamali, under Clauses (c), (d) and (e) of that section. The Sessions Judge, on appeal, has upheld the convictions of Ali Mia and Makhlas Rahaman under Section 9 of the Opium Act read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, but set aside their convictions under the Opium Act, and he has upheld the convictions of the ether accused persons. He has, however, modified the sentences passed on all the petitioners.
(2.) The contention involved in the Rules is that the trial of the petitioners was void as cognizance of the offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 9 of the Opium Act, was taken in contravention of the provisions of Section 196-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) The proceedings before the Court were started upon a report made by the Inspector in charge of Excise and Salt, Chittagong, and dated the 14 August 1925. In the column in which the "Nature of Case" has to be set out, the following was what was stated: Illicit import, transport and possession of opium under Section 9, Act 1 of 1878, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.