Patna High Court
Lalu Pandit And Anr. vs Emperor on 3 July, 1919
Equivalent citations: 53IND. CAS.153
JUDGMENT Coutts, J.
1. This is an application in revision by two persons Lain Pandit and Ali Raza, who have been convicted of offences under Section 9, sub-sections (c) and (e) of the Opium Act, Act I of 1878, and sentenced respectively to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200, or in default one month's further rigorous imprisonment and three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25, or in default two weeks' rigorous imprisonment.
2. The only point which is urged before us is that the conviction is illegal because the provisions of Section 14 of the Opium Act have not been complied with in this case, and reliance is placed upon an expression of opinion by Mr. Justice Das in an unreported case in this Court. On examining this judgment, however, it appears that this is not the basis of Mr. Justice Das' decision and the decisions of other High Courts in India appear to be against the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The matter has been fully considered in Emperor v. Allahdad Rhan 19 Ind. Cas. 332; 35 A. 358; 11 A. L. J. 442; 14 Cr. L. J. 236, Emperor v. Madho Dhobi 31 C. 557; 7 C. W. N. 661; 1 Cr. L. J. 535, Emperor v. Ravalu Ketigadu 26 M. 124; 1 Weir 630 and Emperor v. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar 10 Ind. Cas. 956; 35 B. 225; 13 Bom. L. R. 296; 12 Cr. L. J. 356 and these decisions are clear authority for the view that mere illegality in the exercise of the, right of search is not in itself sufficient ground for setting aside a conviction.
3. We have been asked to consider the question of sentence. In my opinion the sentence in neither case is excessive. I would, therefore, reject this application.
Adami, J.
4. I agree.