SARJOO PROSAD,C.J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this case has moved for setting aside his conviction Under Section 5(a) of the Assam Opium Prohibition Act of 1.947 (Act XXIII of 1947), under which he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months,
(2.) THE . prosecution case is that on 13 -6 -54, Sri G, C. Datta, Special Assistant Excise Inspector of Lumding (P.W. 6), who was on duty at the Lumding Railway Station with other members of his staff, noticed the petitioner getting down from the 513 Up Passenger Train when it steamed into the station at about 1 A.M. in the morning. On getting (liowo, the petitioner summoned two porters to carry his luggage which consisted of a mango basket, a hand -bag and a bedding. The hand -bag and the bedding were carried by one porter while the mango basket was carried by another. The Excise Officer challenged the petitioner and wanted to search his effects. Nothing incriminating, however, was found on a search of the handbag and the bedding, but when the officer wanted to search the manbo basket, the petitioner obstructed him in doing so. The Excise Officer then took the petitioner to the Ticket Collectors' office along with the mango basket in question which, on being searched, was found to contain two packets of opium weighing one seer, which were recovered from inside the basket. The officer then seized the opium and sealed it in the presence of some search witnesses, and reported the matter to the - Inspector of Excise, Special Branch, who in due course sent up the petitioner for trial under the aforesaid Section of the Opium Act. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. His defence in the main was that the mango basket frame which the opium in question was recovered, did not belong to him, but that it belonged to some other passenger who had engaged the porter concerned (P.W. 5) for carrying the same, and that when the petitioner was challenged by the Excise Officer, the other man who had engaged the porter, vanished in the crowd,
(3.) IN support of the prosecution case, a number of witnesses were examined, and the Courts below, which had to examine the evidence in the case, concurrently held that the guilt of the petitioner had been proved. They found that the mango basket in question did belong to the petitioner, and that the oxiiim which was recovered therefrom, was in his conscious possession. They accordingly convicted the petitioner and sentenced him as stated above.;