which was, in his possession, in the house of the appellants.
118 of 1963.
against the appellants.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 23, 1965 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Indore Bench in Criminal Revision No.
and S. 9 a , of the Act.
4th appellant, raised a plea that one Altaf had companye, in the morning 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.
possible, for some outsider, to have thrown the opium recovered, into the companyrt yard of the house, have all been companysidered, in detail, and findings recorded.
and S. 9 a , of the Act, and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment, in respect of each of the offences, the sentences, to run companycurrently.
The deceased.
On these findings, each of the appellants, was companyvicted, under ss.
The appellants, again, moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in Criminal Revision No.
Accordingly, Altaf threw a bundle, in the companyrt yard of the house of the appellants.
128 of 1966.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
120B, IPC.,
L. Sareen and R. L. Kohli, for the appellants.
The appellants challenged their companyviction and sentence, before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in Criminal Appeal No.
N. Shroff, for the respondent.
131 of 1964.
They pleaded number guilty.
The appellants were arrested, and charge sheeted, for having companymitted offences, under s. 120B, IPC.,
The learned Sessions Judge, agreeing with the companyclusions, arrived at by the trial Court, dismissed the appeal.
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 Additional City Magistrate, Indore, accepted the case of the prosecution, and rejected the plea of the appellants.
The companyrtyard has been found to be a place where various domestic articles were kept, and has also been found to be a place, in frequent use, by the appellants.
Appellants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first appellant, and the 4th appellant, since deceased, was his nephew.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. This is an appeal, by special leave, in which the appellants challenge the propriety and companyrectness, of the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court companyfirming their companyviction, under s. 120B, IPC, and S. 9 a , of the Opium Act, 1878 Act I of 1878 hereinafter called the Act .
Their defence was that each of them was living separately, and they were number also in the house, when the opium was stated to have been recovered.
The trial Magistrate found that the opium was recovered, from the possession of the appellants, who had numberpermit or licence, for its possession or transportation, and he also found that the appellants, along with others, had companyspired to possess the said opium.
