Skip to content


Ramachandra Poddar Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectExcise
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. No. 345 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1957Ori95; 23(1957)CLT300; 1957CriLJ529
ActsOpium Act, 1878 - Sections 9; Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 - Sections 7(2); Dangerous Drugs (Import, Export and Transhipment) Rules, 1933 - Rules 4(1) and 11
AppellantRamachandra Poddar
RespondentThe State
Appellant AdvocateG.K. Misra, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateGovt. Adv.
DispositionRevision allowed
Cases ReferredKashinath Poddar v. The State
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..........is admitted by the petitioner but it was urged on his behalf that the capsules werelanced and dried capsules from which the juice had been extracted and that possession of such capsules would not amount to an offence under the opium act. this question has been fully discussed by me in my judgment in kashinath poddar v. the state, criminal revn. no. 120 of 1956 : (air 1957 orissa 93) (a), where i have held, after discussing the rules made under the dangerous drugs act 1930, that there is no restriction on the possession of capsules of the poppy which are lanced and dried or from which the juice had been extracted.the reasoning in that judgment would apply with full force in the present case. some of the seized capsules were sent to the chemical examiner whose report showed that the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Narasimham, C.J.

1. This is a revision against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Cuttack maintaining the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner, under Section 9 (a) of the Opium Act for unlawful possession of 34 bags of capsules of the poppy. The said capsules were seized from his possession on 11th November 1954 by the Excise Sub-Inspector (P. W. 4).

The seizure is admitted by the petitioner but it was urged on his behalf that the capsules werelanced and dried capsules from which the juice had been extracted and that possession of such capsules would not amount to an offence under the Opium Act. This question has been fully discussed by me in my judgment in Kashinath Poddar v. The State, Criminal Revn. No. 120 of 1956 : (AIR 1957 Orissa 93) (A), where I have held, after discussing the rules made under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1930, that there is no restriction on the possession of capsules of the poppy which are lanced and dried or from which the juice had been extracted.

The reasoning in that judgment would apply with full force in the present case. Some of the seized capsules were sent to the Chemical Examiner whose report showed that the capsules bore marks of incision and contained traces of opium. The presence of mere traces of opium would not suffice to show that these capsules are outside the scope of the proviso to Rule 4 (1) and Rule 11 of the Dangerous Drugs (Import, Export and Transhipment) Rules 1933, in cases where it is admitted that they have been lanced and dried or the juice has been extracted therefrom.

2. I must therefore hold that the petitioner isnot guilty of the offence with which he was charged.The conviction and sentence are set aside and heis acquitted. The seized capsules of the poppyshould be returned to him.


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