KASINATH PODDAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Cuttack modifying the judgment of the trial court, but maintaining the conviction of the petitioners under Section 9 (a) of the Opium Act (Act I of 1878) for unlawful possession of 32 bags of poppy capsules. The Excise Sub-Inspector of Dhenkanal (P. W. 4) seized the said 32 bags of capsules on the 19-1-1954 and sent some of the capsules to the Chemical Examiner, Calcutta, whose report (Ext. 2) was to the effect that they contained ingredients of opium. P. W. 4 further stated that all the seized capsules bore marks of incision indicating that the juice had been extracted,

(2.) THE petitioners admitted the recovery of the capsules of the poppy from their possession but urged that possession of incised capsules from which the Juice had been extracted would not amount to an offence under Section 9 (a) of the Opium Act. The lower appellate court, however, thought, relying on Jagjiwan Pitambar v. Emperor, AIR 1936 Nag 240 (A) that possession of such incised capsules also would be an offence, though it would not call for a severe sentence,

(3.) THE main question for decision, therefore, is whether unauthorised possession of incised capsules of the poppy from which the juice had been extracted would amount to an offence under Section 9 (a) of the Opium Act. For this purpose one must carefully scrutinise the provisions of the Opium Act (Act I of 1878), the Dangerous Drugs Act 1930 (Act II of 1930) and the Rules framed under the aforesaid Acts. It is true that under Section 3 (1) of the Opium Act the definition of the expression 'opium' includes "capsules of the poppy". But Section 4 of that Act prohibits unlawful possession of opium.