LexPURANMALL AGARWALLA versus THE STATE OF ORISSA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Sit'll Ram Goel " v. The Municipal BoaP'd, Kanpur Bhagwali ]. August z9. • ' •• 1~62 SUBREME ([)OUR'.!! .-lRIEFck:J1S [1959] Act; he miglit possibl5' }).ave got'some .relief from the· Gourt. He however chose to· wait. Jtill the I decision of the State,Government on his appeal a'nd :overstepped the limit of time to his·owrt detriment. Wear\! un- able to come to any other conclusion th'an tqe one r~ached above and the appeal mu§t, therefore, stand dismissed ; but in the peculiar circumstances of the case we make no order ;i.s to.costs: The appellant was- giv.en leave to proceed as a pauper and he prose'cuted this appeal in forma pauperis. .H& has fa~led.in the appeal and we do order that he ·shall pay the .court-fee which would have been pa.id by him if'he had not been permitted to appeal as a;-pauper. 'The Registrar shall send to the Attorney. General for India a memor.a.ntlum of the court-fees payable by him a;s required by Or. XIV, r. 12, of the Supreme Court Rules. · Appeal dismis~~d . --· • ·PURANM:ALL AGARWA~LA: 1J. 'l'HE ST.ATE OF ORISSA (B. P. S!NHA and JAFER IMAM J-J:) • • • Double PU1iishmmt-Perso" convicted of transportili.g ojnum- If'ca1t be convicted of being it< possession of opiwn also-Sente1'ce- .-' Opium Act (I of r878), ss. 4 and 9.l-Code of Criminal Procedure, (I( of r,llg,o), s. 35-fodian Pe1ial Code (X'LV of r86o), s. ';I, The appellant was caught while he was himsel> transporting OJlium. I;Ie was convicted undet,s. 9(a) of the Opium Act for "possession" of opium and under;;. 9(1>) of the Aat for " trans- port" of opium and was sentenced to µndergo rigorous imprison- ment for three months under each Count, the sentences run oonsecutiV'ely'. The appellant contended that "transpo " included ''possession" and so the double punishment for posse sfon and transpott was riot warranted by law : • Had, 'that possession of opium and transport of opium are , , two separate offences and the appellant could be convicted for • • • ~- S.C.R. SUP!EME COURT REPORTS 1163 both the offences. Transport of opiu1n may, in. certain cases, I958 include the element of possession,,a.nq in other1 ca~es, it ma~ not. A person transporting opiull] through other agepc1es may not be Puranmall in p6ssession of it at 'the time it ~as transported. But 3..person Agarwalla transporting opium himself would b'e in possession of jt and v. would be guilty of berth offences. · The State of OriJsa The se~tence p~~sed upon the appellant did not contraxene the provisions 6f s. 7r' of the ·lQdian Penal Code. Section 7r provides that where anything· is an offence falling within two or more separate definjtions of, the Jaw, the offender shall not be punished with a more,severe punishment than tJiat provided for any one of' such· offences. Though "separate sentences 'vere · passed' against the appellant under s. 9(a) and (b), the sum total of these sententes did not exceed one year's imprisonment the maximum provided .for any of these offences. CRIMINAL APPJilLUATE JuRrsmCTION: Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1956. Appeal by SP.ecial leav:e from the judgment and order dated November 18, 1955, of the Orissa High Ceurt at Cutta:ck, in ·criminal Revision No. 20 of 1955 arising out.o~-the Judgnwnt an~ order dated Decem- ber023, 1954, ,of the Court of the. Se~sions Judge at .811-mbalpur in Criminal Appeal No,'lll(S)'of 1954. . . ' :Fara Chand Mathur and K. L. Arora;. for the appel- lant: N. S. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, for the :cespondent. 1958 .. August '19. The Judgment of the Court· was delivered by' IMAM J.-This appeal by ~pecial leave is limited ta Imam J. the question' whether transport includes possession, and so ehe double punishment for possession and transpol't is not W!l-rranted by law' a,s stated in ground .(;x:i) of .the petition for special leave. . On the facts found there can be no question that the appellant went in a rickshaw from the Sambalpur Road Railway Station to the State Transport Bu~ • Sta wit}\ a trunk and a bed.ding in ord\lr to proceed t place called Bargarh. He pought ,a ticket , fpr argarh. and took his seat in the bus after lo.ading hi~ trunk and bedding on tqp of it. Op i;nformation received by the Officer-in-charge pf ~adar Poli.Ge Sta,- • tion of Sambalpur, ~h!'l bu~ was detain!J~ nea): the 118 • ·' 1164 SUPREME COURT REPjRTS [1959] polic~. station, while Ol'l its way, and all· the trunks and beddi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.