Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The petition is contested by the first respondent. He does not deny that he was convicted under Section 60 of the Excise Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/-. He, however, explains the circumstances in which his conviction was recorded. His case is that he was suffering from pain and had been advised to take bhang as a medicine. Etawah, the district to which he belonged was not a prohibited area and bhang could be purchased from a licensed, shop. The respondent has thus under medical advice purchased a tola of bhang. He had to go in a barat to a place in the district of Kanpur and carried with him a tola of bhang which he had purchased lawfully. He did not Know that possession of bhang in the district of Kanpur was an offence and when the Excise Inspector asked him if he had any bhang with him he told him that he had a small quantity of one tola with him under medical advice and he did not know that possession of such a small quantity or bhang was an offence. He was, however challaned and subsequently convicted. The contention, therefore, is that the conviction was of a technical nature and in the circumstances the offence committed could not be held to involve moral turpitude.

6. No absolute standard can be laid down for deciding whether a particular act is to be considered one involving moral turpitude but the above are the general tests which should be applied and which should in most cases be sufficient for enabling one to arrive at a correct conclusion on the question.

7. Applying the above mentioned test to the facts of the present case it cannot be overlooked that in the district of Etawah to which the respondent belongs there was no prohibition against taking bhang. In that District bhang could be had from a licensed shop by any man. It is also well known that bhang is some times used as medicine. The quantity which was found in possession of the respondent was a very small quantity of one tola. The taking of bhang either as a medicine or as an intoxicant is not considered undesirable by society in general and in most districts of this State the practice of taking bhang is fairly common. The respondent would not have been convicted at all if that small quantity of bhang had been found in his possession in his own district. Unfortunately, when he had gone in the barat he had taken that quantity of bhang with him and as he was found to be in possession of the article in a district where prohibition was in force he was held guilty under Section 60(a) of the Excise Act. There was in the present case, therefore, no base motive leading to the crime. The act did not also show any depravity in the character of the respondent nor had the respondent done anything which was considered base or demeaning by society in general. In these circumstances the conviction of the respondent was really a technical one and could not be considered to be in respect of an offence involving moral turpitude.