Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Defence charge of being in possession of opium greater than licensed capacity. - The defence to a charge under the Opium Act, of being in possession of a greater quantity of opium than allowed by law, that other persons living in his house also consumed opium is of no avail, unless it is conclusively shown that the possession of the accused was the joint pos- session of himself and others and that he held on behalf and for the use of all. In a case where I seer 11-3/4 chittacks of liquor, being a mixture of spirit and lahan was found in the house of the accused in which house his son also resided and where it was impossible to say how much lahan was mixed with the spirit owing to an accident in distillation. It was held, that the accused has rightly been convicted by the Magistrate. In the absence of proof of a joint possession, the possession must be deemed to be that of the accused, the owner of the house, the presence of a son making no difference, as it was not proved that the son had joined in the purchase, or the liquor had been held jointly with him and that the whole of the liquor was country spirit within the definition of Section 3( I )(i) of the Excise Act, the fact of lahan being mixed with lit making no difference, as the whole was liquor containing alcohol obtained by distillation. Where the accused was charged with having more than one tola of chandu in his possession in contravention of the Rules under the Opium Act (1 of 1878). He did not deny that 2-1/2 tolas were found in his house, but his defence was that there were four other inmates of the house, and that they all smoked chandu. The Magistrate convicted the accused, but the Sessions Judge, on appeal, acquitted him on a finding that there were three other inmates of the house who smoked chandu, and that therefore, the amount in the possession of each was less than one tola, the amount allowed by law. An appeal was preferred on behalf of Government to contest the correctness of the legal consequence which the Sessions Judge held must follow his finding. It was held, that accused had rightly been convicted by the Magistrate and that his acquittal by the Session Judge must be set aside. Roe, CJ. - Accused had not proved that as a matter of fact a certain number of persons living in one house had joined in the purchase of the drug, and that it was actually held by one for the use of all.