ASHIQ MIYAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 188 · Decided: 01-05-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. RAMASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

ASH IQ MIY AN AND ORS. 
V. 
STA TE OF MAI>llY A PRADESH 
May 1. 1968 
[V. RAMASWAMI AND C. A. VAil>IALINGAM, JJ.j 
Opiton Act (1 of 1878), a.\· applicabl:: ro 1\fadhya Pradesh-Seizure 
and Report by l'olicc Ofjic:er-Tria! lt1'der Cr. P. C. 11·httl1er s. 251A 
or s. 252 c:r. P.C:. applicable. 
On receiving 
information, Lhat opium 
\\'as being 
smuggled 
and 
secretly kept in the house of the appellants. the Sllb-Inspcclor of Police 
\\.i~ a police party raided their house. and recovered Jar~e quantity of 
opium from the courtyard of the house. 
The Sub-Inspector of Police 
made the report and the trial followed. 
The appellanl<' pica that they 
\1.:cre living separately and that one A had thrown the bundle, \Vas re-
jected by the 
court~ 
beJoy,·. and they 
\\'Cre convicted under s. 1208 
I.P.C. and s. 9(a) of the Opium Act. 
Jn the appeal 10 this Court. the 
appellants contended that the trial. which was held. under s. 251A of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure. \\'JS vitiated, as it should have hcen 
properly held only umkr s. 252 Cr. P.C. 
HELD : There \vas no illegality in the trial. 
In this case the investigation \\'3S done hy a police otlicer. the seizure 
of the anicles and the report to the Magistrate. was made by the Police 
Officer. 
It \\'as on this repon of the police officer that the f\fagistrate 
acted further. and the- trial also fol10V1·cd. 
In respect of a trial conduct~ 
A 
JI 
c 
D 
ed by a Magistrat<.- on a report made br a police officer. under the Opium 
E 
Act, as applicable 10 the State of Madhya Pradesh. for an offence under 
that Act. s. 251A Cr. P.C. is applicahlc. 1192 F-HJ 
Anial'lhah v. Stafr of 
Madhya Prad::slt, 
unreported 
decision. 
in 
Cr. A. No. 201/63. dt. 11-12-64. followed. 
CRIMISAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Criminal Appeal No. 
128 of I 966. 
F 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
December 23, I 965 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore 
Bench) in Criminal Revision 1'o. 13 I of 1964. 
C. L. Sareen and R. L. Kohli, for the appellanls. 
l. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
Vaidialingam. J. This is an appeal. hy special leave, in which 
the appellants challenge the propriety and 
correciness. 
of 1he 
order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court confinning 1heir con-
viction, under s. ! 20B, TPC. and s. 9 (a). of the Opium Act, 1878 
H 
(Act I of 1878) (hereinafter calic<l the Act). 
Appcllanis 2 .and 
3 are the sons of the first appellant, and the 4th appellant. since 
deceased, was his nephew. 
. ; 
• 
A 
B 
c 
• 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ASH!Q MIYAN v. M.P. STATE (Vaidialingam, J.) 
'189 
On receiving information, that opium was being smuggled and 
secretly kept, in the house of the appellants, the Sub Inspector 
of Police, Station Malharganj, Indore, with a police party, raided 
their house, on September 19, 1960, and recovered a fairly large 
quantity of opium, of about 2 maunds, 14 seers and 14 chhatacks. 
The appellants were arrested, and charge-sheeted, 
for 
having 
committed offences, under s. 120B, IPC., ands. 9(a), of the Act. 
They pleaded not guilty. 
Their defence was that each of them 
was living separately, and they were not also in the house, when 
the opium was stated to have been recovered. 
The deceased, 
4th appellant, raised a plea that one Altaf had come, in the morn-
ing of September 19, 1960, at about 9 a.m., and told him that 
the police were after him, and that he wanted to throw a bundle, 
which was, in his possession, in the house of the appellants. 
Accordingly, Altaf threw a bundle, in the court-yard of the house 
of the appellants . 
The Additional City Magistrate, Indore, accepted the case of 
the prosecution, and rejected the plea of the appellants. The trial 
Magistrate found that the opium was recovered, from the posses-
sion of the appellants, who had no permit or licence, for its 
possession or transportation, and he also found that the appellants, 
along with others, had conspired to possess the said opium. 
On 
these findings. each of the appellants, 
was 
convicted, 
under 
ss. 120B, IPC .. and s. 9 (a), of the Act, and sentenced to undergo 
two years' rigorous imprisoument, in respect of each of the 
offences, the sentences, to run concurrently. 
The appellants challenged their conviction 
and sentence, 
before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Criminal 
Appeal No. 118 of 1963. 
The learned Sessions Judge, agreeing 
with the conclusions, arrived at by the trial Court, dis

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.