On the facts found, the trunk was identified as that of the appellant, and there can be numberquestion that he was in possession of the opium.
The appellant claimed the bedding to be his own, but denied the trunk to be his property.
20 of 1955 arising out of the Judgment and order dated December 23, 1954, of the Court of the Sessions Judge at Sambalpur in Criminal Appeal No.
The bedding and the trunk were brought to the thana and the trunk was opened.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 18, 1955, of the Orissa Hioh Court at Cuttack, in Criminal Revision No.
The trunk companytained opium weighing six seers and six and half chhataks.
69 of 1956.
Tara Chand Mathur and K. L. Arora, for the appellant.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
One trunk and a bedding, however, remained on the ground.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM J. This appeal by special leave is limited to the question whether transport includes possession, and so the double punishment for possession and transport is number warranted by laws stated in ground xi of the petition for special leave.
On the facts found there can be numberquestion that the appellant went in a rickshaw from the Sambalpur Road Railway Station to the State Transport Bus Stand with a trunk and a bedding in order to proceed to a place called Bargarh.
The passengers took their trunks and beddings.
August 19.
111 S of 1954.
S. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar for the respondent.
On information received by the Officer in charge of Sadar Police Station of Sambalpur, the bus was detained near the 1164 police station, while on its way, and all the trunks and beddings on it were unloaded, and the passengers of the bus were asked to take their respective trunks and beddings.
He bought a ticket for Bargarh and took his seat in the bus after loading his trunk and bedding on top of it.
