State of Punjab vs Ram Lal

S.S. Dewan, J.

For having been found in possession of 15 kgs. of opium, Ram Lal accused was challaned and sent up to take his trial under section 9 of the opium Act.

It is the common ground of the parties that the sample of the opium sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis during the investigation of the case was found to be opium. Subsequently, another sample was sent to the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta who declared the same to be containing morphine but not meconic acid. The trial magistrate found a prima facie case against the petitioner and accordingly charged him for the offence under section 9(i)(a) of the Opium Act, Feeling aggrieved, the accused went up in revision and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, vide his order dated February 22, 1983 relying on the dictum in Inder Singh v. The State of Punjab 1981 CLR 114 observed that though morphine was found in the sample, the Director having nowhere indicated that it also contained meconic acid, the sample cannot be termed as opium so as to make out a prima facie case for charge being framed against the accused and allowed the revision petition and while setting aside the order passed by the trial court discharged the accused. Feeling dissatisfied, the State of Punjab has now come up in revision.

The point involved in this revision stands concluded by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Inder Singh''s case (supra) wherein it has been observed in the following terms :

"The question is whether the Chemical Examiner is required to determine all the alkaloids which are present in the opium or a quite number of them, besides morphine. We agree with the observations of the learned Single Judge in Butta Singh''s case (supra) only to the extent that the presence of morphine alone will not bring the substance analysed by the Chemical Examiner within the ambit of the definition of opium as given in the Act. He has to establish the presence of meconic acid also with it before he gives his opinion about the substance examined by him to be opium."

Sitting singly, I am bound by the Division Bench decision of this Court. I have perused the record and I do not think it a fit case for interfering with the impugned order in the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Sate cited an unreported Full Bench judgment of this Court in Bharpur Singh v. The State of Punjab decided on December 6, 1984; Syed Meheboob Ali v. State 1969 Cr. LJ 1727, Jai Parkash v. State 1979 Cr. LJ 1167 and Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, AIR 1980 SC 52. I have perused these authorities and find that these are clearly distinguishable and the ratio thereof is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.