# Sit'll Ram Goel " v. The Municipal BoaP'd, Kanpur Bhagwali ]. August z9. • ' ••

- **Citation:** [1959] 1 S.C.R. 1162
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1959
- **Bench:** B. P. S!Nha, Jafer Imam J-J
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sit-ll-ram-goel-v-the-municipal-boap-d-kanpur-bhagwali-august-z9-1461
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

•
• •
Double PU1iishmmt-Perso" convicted of transportili.g ojnumIf'ca1t be convicted of being it< possession of opiwn also-Sente1'ce-
.-'
Opium Act (I of r878), ss. 4 and 9.l-Code of Criminal Procedure,
(I( of r,llg,o), s. 35-fodian Pe1ial Code (X'LV of r86o), s. ';I,
The appellant was caught while he was himsel> transporting
OJlium.
I;Ie was convicted undet,s. 9(a) of the Opium Act for
"possession" of opium and under;;. 9(1>) of the Aat for " transport" of opium and was sentenced to μndergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under each Count, the sentences
run
oonsecutiV'ely'.
The appellant contended
that "transpo "
included ''possession" and so the double punishment for posse
sfon and transpott was riot warranted by law :
•
Had, 'that possession of opium and transport of opium are
, ,
two separate offences and the appellant could be convicted for
•
•
•
~-
S.C.R.
SUP!EME COURT REPORTS
1163
both the offences. Transport of opiu1n may, in. certain cases,
I958
include the element of possession,,a.nq in other1 ca~es, it ma~ not.
A person transporting opiull] through other agepc1es may not be
Puranmall
in p6ssession of it at 'the time it ~as transported.
But 3..person
Agarwalla
transporting opium himself would b'e in possession of jt and
v.
would be guilty of berth offences.
·
The State of OriJsa
The se~tence p~~sed upon the appellant did not contraxene
the provisions 6f s. 7r' of the ·lQdian Penal Code.
Section 7r
provides that where anything· is an offence falling within two or
more separate definjtions of, the Jaw, the offender shall not be
punished with a more,severe punishment than tJiat provided for
any one of' such· offences. Though "separate sentences 'vere ·
passed' against the appellant under s. 9(a) and (b), the sum total
of these sententes did not exceed one year's imprisonment the
maximum provided .for any of these offences.
CRIMINAL
APPJilLUATE
JuRrsmCTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 69 of 1956.
Appeal by SP.ecial leav:e from the judgment and
order dated November 18, 1955, of the Orissa High
Ceurt at Cutta:ck, in ·criminal Revision No. 20 of 1955
arising out.o~-the Judgnwnt an~ order dated December023, 1954, ,of the Court of the. Se~sions Judge at
.811-mbalpur in Criminal Appeal No,'lll(S)'of 1954.
.
.
'
:Fara Chand Mathur and K. L. Arora;. for the appellant:
N. S. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, for the :cespondent.
1958 .. August '19. The Judgment of the Court·
was delivered by'
IMAM J.-This appeal by ~pecial leave is limited ta
Imam J.
the question' whether transport includes possession,
and so ehe double punishment for possession and
transpol't is not W!l-rranted by law' a,s stated in ground
.(;x:i) of .the petition for special leave.
.
On the facts found there can be no question that
the appellant went in a rickshaw from the Sambalpur
Road Railway Station to the State Transport Bu~
•
Sta
wit}\ a trunk and a bed.ding in ord\lr to proceed
t
place called Bargarh. He pought ,a ticket , fpr
argarh. and took his seat in the bus after lo.ading hi~
trunk and bedding on tqp of it. Op i;nformation
received by the Officer-in-charge pf ~adar Poli.Ge Sta,- •
tion of Sambalpur,
~h!'l bu~ was detain!J~ nea): the
118
•
·'
1164
SUPREME COURT REPjRTS
[1959]
polic~. station, while Ol'l its way, and all· the trunks
and beddings on it were unlo!J.ded, and the passengers
Puranmall
of the bus were asked to fake their respective trunks
Aga~~alla
and' 9eddip.gs. · The passengi:rs took th~ir trm;i.ks and
Th• stat• of o.ssso beddmgs.
One trunk and a
b~ddmg, ha.wever,
-
remained on Tue ground.
Tl\4" appellant claimed the
Imam· J,
bedding to be his own, ·but denied the trunk to be his
property. The bedding and the trunk were brought
to the thana and the trunk was opened. The trunk
contained opium weigliing six seers and six and half
chhataks. On the facts found, the trunk was 'identified as that of the appellant, and there can be no
question that he was in possession of the opium. The
pnly question fQr consideratioq, having regard to the
limited grou

## Text

Sit'll Ram Goel
"
v.
The Municipal
BoaP'd, Kanpur
Bhagwali ].
August z9.
•
'
••
1~62
SUBREME ([)OUR'.!! .-lRIEFck:J1S
[1959]
Act; he miglit possibl5' }).ave got'some .relief from the·
Gourt.
He however chose to· wait. Jtill the I decision of
the State,Government on his appeal a'nd :overstepped
the limit of time to his·owrt detriment. Wear\! unable to come to any other conclusion th'an tqe one
r~ached above and the appeal mu§t, therefore, stand
dismissed ; but in the peculiar circumstances of the
case we make no order ;i.s to.costs:
The appellant was- giv.en leave to proceed as a
pauper and he prose'cuted this appeal in forma
pauperis. .H& has fa~led.in the appeal and we do order
that he ·shall pay the .court-fee which would have been
pa.id by him if'he had not been permitted to appeal as
a;-pauper. 'The Registrar shall send to the Attorney.
General for India a memor.a.ntlum of the court-fees
payable by him a;s required by Or. XIV, r. 12, of the
Supreme Court Rules.
·
Appeal dismis~~d .
--·
•
·PURANM:ALL AGARWA~LA:
1J.
'l'HE ST.ATE OF ORISSA
(B. P. S!NHA and JAFER IMAM J-J:)
•
• •
Double PU1iishmmt-Perso" convicted of transportili.g ojnumIf'ca1t be convicted of being it< possession of opiwn also-Sente1'ce-
.-'
Opium Act (I of r878), ss. 4 and 9.l-Code of Criminal Procedure,
(I( of r,llg,o), s. 35-fodian Pe1ial Code (X'LV of r86o), s. ';I,
The appellant was caught while he was himsel> transporting
OJlium.
I;Ie was convicted undet,s. 9(a) of the Opium Act for
"possession" of opium and under;;. 9(1>) of the Aat for " transport" of opium and was sentenced to μndergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under each Count, the sentences
run
oonsecutiV'ely'.
The appellant contended
that "transpo "
included ''possession" and so the double punishment for posse
sfon and transpott was riot warranted by law :
•
Had, 'that possession of opium and transport of opium are
, ,
two separate offences and the appellant could be convicted for
•
•
•
~-
S.C.R.
SUP!EME COURT REPORTS
1163
both the offences. Transport of opiu1n may, in. certain cases,
I958
include the element of possession,,a.nq in other1 ca~es, it ma~ not.
A person transporting opiull] through other agepc1es may not be
Puranmall
in p6ssession of it at 'the time it ~as transported.
But 3..person
Agarwalla
transporting opium himself would b'e in possession of jt and
v.
would be guilty of berth offences.
·
The State of OriJsa
The se~tence p~~sed upon the appellant did not contraxene
the provisions 6f s. 7r' of the ·lQdian Penal Code.
Section 7r
provides that where anything· is an offence falling within two or
more separate definjtions of, the Jaw, the offender shall not be
punished with a more,severe punishment than tJiat provided for
any one of' such· offences. Though "separate sentences 'vere ·
passed' against the appellant under s. 9(a) and (b), the sum total
of these sententes did not exceed one year's imprisonment the
maximum provided .for any of these offences.
CRIMINAL
APPJilLUATE
JuRrsmCTION:
Criminal
Appeal No. 69 of 1956.
Appeal by SP.ecial leav:e from the judgment and
order dated November 18, 1955, of the Orissa High
Ceurt at Cutta:ck, in ·criminal Revision No. 20 of 1955
arising out.o~-the Judgnwnt an~ order dated December023, 1954, ,of the Court of the. Se~sions Judge at
.811-mbalpur in Criminal Appeal No,'lll(S)'of 1954.
.
.
'
:Fara Chand Mathur and K. L. Arora;. for the appellant:
N. S. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, for the :cespondent.
1958 .. August '19. The Judgment of the Court·
was delivered by'
IMAM J.-This appeal by ~pecial leave is limited ta
Imam J.
the question' whether transport includes possession,
and so ehe double punishment for possession and
transpol't is not W!l-rranted by law' a,s stated in ground
.(;x:i) of .the petition for special leave.
.
On the facts found there can be no question that
the appellant went in a rickshaw from the Sambalpur
Road Railway Station to the State Transport Bu~
•
Sta
wit}\ a trunk and a bed.ding in ord\lr to proceed
t
place called Bargarh. He pought ,a ticket , fpr
argarh. and took his seat in the bus after lo.ading hi~
trunk and bedding on tqp of it. Op i;nformation
received by the Officer-in-charge pf ~adar Poli.Ge Sta,- •
tion of Sambalpur,
~h!'l bu~ was detain!J~ nea): the
118
•
·'
1164
SUPREME COURT REPjRTS
[1959]
polic~. station, while Ol'l its way, and all· the trunks
and beddings on it were unlo!J.ded, and the passengers
Puranmall
of the bus were asked to fake their respective trunks
Aga~~alla
and' 9eddip.gs. · The passengi:rs took th~ir trm;i.ks and
Th• stat• of o.ssso beddmgs.
One trunk and a
b~ddmg, ha.wever,
-
remained on Tue ground.
Tl\4" appellant claimed the
Imam· J,
bedding to be his own, ·but denied the trunk to be his
property. The bedding and the trunk were brought
to the thana and the trunk was opened. The trunk
contained opium weigliing six seers and six and half
chhataks. On the facts found, the trunk was 'identified as that of the appellant, and there can be no
question that he was in possession of the opium. The
pnly question fQr consideratioq, having regard to the
limited ground upon which special leave was granted,
is whether the appellant could also l;>e punished for
being in possession of opium,_ as it is su11gested that
• transpoi;t ' includes ' possession'.
The appellant was sentenced under s. 9 (a) ·for
'po~session' of 9pium and under. s. '9(bJ for 'ti:ll>nspott' of opium, and s.entenced to undergo rigorous
.imprisonment for three months under' each count, 'the
sentences to run conseoutively.
•
•
•
Section 4 of the Opium Act, 1878 (Act I of 1878)
reads as follows :
·
"Except as p,ermitted by this Act, or by any
other enactment relating j;o opium for the time being
in force, or by rules framed under this Act or under
any such enactment, no ·one shall-
( a) possess opium;
(b) transport -0pi um ;
-
,
.
,,
................................... ' ........................... .
It is clear from the provisions of s. 4 that no one
shall possess opium or transport opium, except under
the circumstances mentioned in the section. Section
!l provides that:
.
"Any person who, in contravention of th\~t,
or of rules made and notified ·under section 5 or
-
tion 8-·
'
·
(a) possesses opium, br
'
(b) trlmspo~ts bpium
.
.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
• •
' ..
r •
•
\ .
S.G.R.
SUPlEME COURT REPORTS
1165
shall, on conviction before a Mii.gistrate, be punished
'958
for each such offence 0 \vith imprisonment for a term
Puranmall
which may extend to one year, or with fine which may
Agarwalla
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
v.
This was the provision, in s. 9 before·its amenclment n, Stats 01 Orissa
~y Act LII of 1957 which' provided t.hat on convicImam 1.
t10n before a Magistrate, a person convicted of any of
the offences mentioned in s. 9 shall be punishab1e for
each ·such offence with imptisoninent which may
extend to three years, with or without fine.
We ·are, -
however', not ·concerned in this particular case with
the punishment provided by the· amendment, as the
offence·was committe~ previou,ll''to it. The provisions
of the Opium. Act make it·clea'r that possession of
opium and transport -of ·opium contrary to the provisions of the Act or any other enactment relating to
opium or to rules framed •under the Act, are two
sEJparate offences. Mere possession of opium may not,
on the proved·iacts of a 'Particular case, involve any
question of transporting it. 'rransport of opium may,
in certain circumstances, include the element of
possession, while in other cases;'it may 'not.
A person
mri.y transport opium throug11 "9"arious agencies and
yet not be i,n possession of it ·at the time it was transportl\d.
Ori· the other hand, a person ·may transport·
opium and yet be in possession of it. In the latter
case, such a person would be guilty both of transporting opium and· being in possession Of it. Under the
A:ct, ' transport·' means ' to remove from one place to
another ~thin the same State'. A person may remove
opium 11-nd be in possession of.it while removing it,
and he can also remove .it from one. place to another
within the same State in circumstances when· while
reqioving it he is not in possession of the opium. The.
intention of the Legislature appears to have been that
neither possession of.<{ oium nor transporting of opium
ermissi~le, if such poss?s~ion or transpor~ing was
travent10n of the provrn10ns of the Opmfn Act
y otlier enactment relating to opium, or rules
framed under the Opium Act. It.seems.therefore that
where-a person transports opium and is ii;t·possession of •
it at the time he was transpor:ing it, he hi\.s committed
•
•
•
1166
.,
'
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[J.9593
r958
two offences, viz.,. ·tl~ of transporting opium; and
Puranmall
(2) of possessing opium. He can therefore be con,
victed for bo'th the offences.
Agarwalla
v.
As to the·sentence which can be imposed, reference
The Stat• of Orissa to s. 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure anc3. s. 71
Iniani ].·
•
of the 1ndjan Penal-Code is necessary., Section. 35 of
the Code.of .Criminal Procedure provides that where
a person is convicted at OJ;te
tri~l of two or more
offences, the Court.may., subject to ·the 'pro,yisions -0£
s. 71 of the Indian,Pen'al Code, sentence.him, for·such
offences, to the several punishmimts prescribed therefor which suo.h Oour.t is competent to infiiqt; JJ11ch
punishmei;its, when consisting of imprisonment J;o
· commence the' one· p.f!(er the expiration' of the other in
such order as the. Go1,1rt may direct, unless , the Court
directs that suc:\1 punishm'ent shall run concurrently.
Section 35 therefore permits. the passing of separate
sentences for different offences and for them to run
consecutively unless the, Court directs that they sh<1-ll
run concurrently. This, however, is subject to -the
provisions of s. :71 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 71
of the Indian, Penal Code provides:
,
"Where anything ~hicli is an offence is .made np
of ·parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the
offender shall.not be punished:w.ith the punishme!J.t .. of
more than one. of sucli his offences, unless .it .be so
expressly provided.
.
Where anything is an offen9e fallihg within two
or more separate definitions of any faw in force for the
time being by which offences are defined or 'Punished;
or
,
1
where several acts, of which one or more .than
one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence,
constitute, when combined, a different-offence,
.
the offender shall not be punished with a1 more
severe punishment than the Court which tries him
It is clear froni tliese provisions that where anythi
could award for any one of such offences."
~
if! an offen'\Je falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force· for the time being by which
·• offences are defim;id or punished, the •offender .shall not
be punished with a more Se'(ere punishment than the
•
•
•
•'
' .
. '
~
L
·-
'
t
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS .
ll67
Court which tries him cquld 'award for any one of
x95B
such off(lnces.'. The maximum sentence which could
Puranmall
have been μnpqsed upon ~the appellant for a1;1y one of
Agarwal/a
the offences of.which he had been convicted was one
v.
year's•iniprisonmenp. ln 'other words, even if separate The State of Orissa
-sentences were passed under.a .. 9, sub-ss. (a) an\l (b),
-
the sum total of these sentences should not exceed one
1'" 0"' J.
year's imprisonment. In the present 0;:1se, t.he sentence
imposed upon.the appellant has been in all 6 months,
3 months' imprisonment under each c0unt. It wol.lld
appear; therefore, that the sentence passed upon the
appellant did not
c6ntrav~ne the provisions of /l. 71
of thf) Indiaμ Penal Code. In our opinio'n, the appellant .was rightly.convicted under s. 9.(a) and (b) of the
Opium Act, and· there has Been no illegality in the
sentence' imposed upon him.·
It \Vas ~trsmgly urged on behalf of the appella;nt
that there might be a redhction .in the. sentence.
Instead of a sentence of imprisonment being imposed,
the- appellant may be sentenced to a substantial fine.
In our qpinion, offences against the Opium Act are
serious ones, and we cannot accede to the re'quest
ma.de. 4 sentence of 6 months' imprisonment cannot
be considered as unduly severe.
The ai;>pe,al is accordingly dismissed.
,1
I
•
I
•'
..
-
M. RAMAPPA
v.
S.ANGAPPA AND OTHERS
(VENKATARAMA AIYAR, GAJENDRAGADKAR and
A. K. SARKAR JJ.) '
..
lion Dispute-Disqualification for being chosen as me.,;ber
bf.
ate Assembly-Hereditary.village office-Whether office of prounder the Government-Mysore Villaf..e Offices Act, 1~08 (Mysore
4 of 199~), ss. q, 7, 8-Rep~esei:tatjon of (he People Act, 195~
(43 of 1951): s. 106(1)(c)-Constitufion of Jndia, Art. 191,
•
Tlie ~omination papers o{ three candisJates Jar election as
members of the State l\.Ssembly were rejected by the Returning
•
•
August ar.
•