Skip to content


Musammat Ajuba and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.450
AppellantMusammat Ajuba and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
opium act (i of 1878), section 9 - illicit sale of opium--evidence--presumption. - - the facts of the present case are not sufficiently strong to allow that presumption to be drawn which was drawn in the reported case. the learned sessions judge was clearly of this opinion when he acquitted manni lal......appealed to the sessions judge who held that the offence was not proved and acquitted him. the two present applicants applied to him in revision in their cases but their application was rejected. they have now come to this court in revision. the facts appear to be briefly as follows: the police raided the house in question, and found several persons present, one of whom was smoking chandu. on the premises were found three pipes, two iron needles, one pair of tongs, one lamp and one smoking pillow. the amount of the drug found in the house was within the limit allowed by law. there is no evidence whatsoever of the sale of opium by the applicants. the magistrate relied upon the decision of this court in king-emperor v. bakir a.w.n. (1902) 17. but the facts of the present case are very.....
Judgment:

Tudball, J.

1. The two applicants, Musammat Ajuba and Butan Singh were tried together with one Manni Lal on a charge of illicit sale of opium under Section 9 of Act I of 1878. Manni Lal was fined Rs. 60. The two applicants were fined Rs. 25 each. The former appealed to the Sessions Judge who held that the offence was not proved and acquitted him. The two present applicants applied to him in revision in their cases but their application was rejected. They have now come to this Court in revision. The facts appear to be briefly as follows: The police raided the house in question, and found several persons present, one of whom was smoking chandu. On the premises were found three pipes, two iron needles, one pair of tongs, one lamp and one smoking pillow. The amount of the drug found in the house was within the limit allowed by law. There is no evidence whatsoever of the sale of opium by the applicants. The Magistrate relied upon the decision of this Court in King-Emperor v. Bakir A.W.N. (1902) 17. But the facts of the present case are very different from those, of the case above mentioned where a large quantity of the drug in excess of the legal amount was found and where several persons were found smoking. The facts of the present case are not sufficiently strong to allow that presumption to be drawn which was drawn in the reported case. The learned Sessions Judge was clearly of this opinion when he acquitted Manni Lal. If the offence was not proved against Manni Lal, much less has it been proved against the applicants, the evidence is quite insufficient to prove the guilt of the latter. I, therefore, allow the application and set aside the convictions and sentences. The fines, if paid, will be refunded.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //