Skip to content


Atmacoori Ramamurty Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. No. 277 of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1967Ori54; 1967CriLJ573
ActsProbation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Sections 4(1); Opium Act, 1878 - Sections 9
AppellantAtmacoori Ramamurty
RespondentThe State
Appellant AdvocateM.S. Rao, ;M.K.C. Rao and ;A.K. Rao, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateStanding Counsel
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot..........were recovered from there. the petitioner took the plea that the articles recovered from his shop and godown were dried pomegranate shells and not poppy capsules, but this plea was rejected and he was held guilty of the offence.4. mr. rao for the petitioner did not challenge the conviction but urged that in view of the coming into force of the probation of offenders act the petitioner may be released under section 4(1) of that act because this was his first offence and moreover the petitioner is a respectable merchant of berhampur town. there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the antecedents' of the petitioner are in any way disreputable. he seems to be a fairly important businessman of berhampur town and there is no danger of his absconding from the jurisdiction of this.....
Judgment:
ORDER

R.L. Narasimham, C.J.

1. This is a revision against the appellate judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Berhampur maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under Section 9 (a) of the Opium Act and the sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment passed on him by a First Class Magistrate of Berhampur.

2. The petitioner is a shop keeper of Berhampur town having a godown there. On 25-6-1958 his shop was raided by the Excise Sub-Inspector (P. W. 1) at 10 A, M. and a bag containing 16 seers of poppy capsules was recovered.

3. His godown was also searched and 29 bags containing 13 maunds of poppy capsules were recovered from there. The petitioner took the plea that the articles recovered from his shop and godown were dried pomegranate shells and not poppy capsules, but this plea was rejected and he was held guilty of the offence.

4. Mr. Rao for the petitioner did not challenge the conviction but urged that in view of the coming into force of the Probation of Offenders Act the petitioner may be released under Section 4(1) of that Act because this was his first offence and moreover the petitioner is a respectable merchant of Berhampur town. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the antecedents' of the petitioner are in any way disreputable. He seems to be a fairly important businessman of Berhampur town and there is no danger of his absconding from the jurisdiction of this Court, even if he is released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. It also appears from the evidence of the Sub-Inspector of Excise that the capsules were kept not for the purpose of preparing opium for his consumption, but for carrying on the business of despatching it to other places and thereby making some profit. I think this is a fit case in which Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act can be applied.

5. While therefore maintaining the conviction of the petitioner, under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act, I set aside the sentence of imprisonment and, in lieu of the same, I direct that he be released on his entering into a bond for Rs. 1000 with two sureties of Rs. 500 each, to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during a period of one year from today and, in the meantime, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The bond shall be executed tothe satisfaction of the Sub-divisional Magistrate,Berhampur.


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