Skip to content


Jogesh Chandra Lahiri Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in56Ind.Cas.657
AppellantJogesh Chandra Lahiri
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
opium act (i of 1878), section 9 - sale of morphia to patients by approved medical practitioner without license--offence. - 1. this rule has been granted limiting it to the ground that ''the facts found do not warrant a conviction under section 9 of the opium act.' the facts found are that the accused sold morphia as evidenced by his prescription, dated the 27th may 1919. and that it was not supplied gratis.2. we think that the magistrate was right in convicting the accused. we consider his judgment to be good and very well considered. rule 6 expressly states that an approved practitioner may possess morphia for use in his practise but not for sale. the magistrate is quite right in saying that there is a clear distinction between use in practice and sale to one's patients. we agree with the view expressed by him.3. the rule is, therefore, discharged and the conviction and sentence affirmed.
Judgment:

1. This Rule has been granted limiting it to the ground that ''the facts found do not warrant a conviction under Section 9 of the Opium Act.' The facts found are that the accused sold morphia as evidenced by his prescription, dated the 27th May 1919. And that it was not supplied gratis.

2. We think that the Magistrate was right in convicting the accused. We consider his judgment to be good and very well considered. Rule 6 expressly states that an approved practitioner may possess morphia for use in his practise but not for sale. The Magistrate is quite right in saying that there is a clear distinction between use in practice and sale to one's patients. We agree with the view expressed by him.

3. The Rule is, therefore, discharged and the conviction and sentence affirmed.


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