- (1.) N. B. Asthana, J. The opposite party cultivates opium on license from the applicant. Under Rule 13 of the Rules framed under the Act, the cultivator is required to produce during the course of harvesting, each days' collection of opium from his crop for weighment before the Lambardar. The Lambardar is required to weigh such opium and make necessary entries in the records to be maintained by him. The Lambardar and the cultivator are required to attest the entries under their signature/thumb impression with date, showing the quantity of opium weighed on a particular day. The proper officer is required to conduct check weighment of the opium collected by the cultivators with reference to the entries in the Lambardar's record and indicate his finding therein which shall be attested by him and the Lambardar under their signature with the date. The variations between the quantity of opium produced by the cultivator indi cated in the Lambardar's record and as found by the proper officer during his check, shall be inquired into by the proper officer in order to ascertain the liability of the cultivator for punishment under Sec tion 19of the Act.
(2.) SECTION 19 of the Act provides for punishment for embezzlement of opium by cultivator and lays down that any cul tivator, licensed to cultivate the opium poppy on account of the Central Govern ment, embezzles or otherwise illegally dis poses of the opium produced or any part thereof shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may ex tend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees. The case of the applicant is that in all 4 Kgs. 800 Grams of opium was ex tracted by the opposite party during the period 8-3- 1996 to 16-3-1996. However, only 3 Kg. 500 gms. opium was handed over to the proper officer which was less than 1 Kg. 300 gms. of opium extracted by him. Search was made of the premises of the opposite party, upon which 750 gms. of opium was recovered from his possession. Still the quantity remained short by 550 grams. He was thereupon arrested and produced before Special Judge/sessions Judge, Barabanki who granted him bail for the offence in question on the ground that till the date of checking by the officers the accused had not surrendered his opium collection and as such no offence under Sections 8/18/19 of the Act has been made out. Aggrieved by it, the applicant has come to this Court for cancellation of the aforesaid bail.
(3.) SECTION 37 of the Act makes the offence under the Act to be cognizable and non-bailable. It lays down, inter alia, that notwithstandinganythingcontainedinthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 no per son accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under the Act shall be released on bail unless where the Public Prosecutor op poses the application, the Court is satis fied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such of fence and that he is not likely to commit any affiance while on bail. In the instant case, the trial court has now here stated in the bail orders that it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the offence in question and, therefore, bail could not have been granted to him and on this very ground the cancellation of bail is sought.;