C.V.RANE
ALIHUSEN NAJARALI – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
( 1 ) THE main question to be decided in this appeal is whether what was found from the possession of the accused was opium within the meaning of sec. 2 (30) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. According to the above section opium means (a) the capsules of the poppy (Papaver Somniforum L) whether in their original form or cut or crushed or powdered and whether or not the juice has been extracted therefrom; (b) the spontaneously coagulated juice of such capsules which has not been submitted to any manipulation other than those necessary for packing and transport; and (c) any mixture with or without neutral materials of any of the above forms of opium but does not include any preparations containing not more than 0. 2 per cent of morphine or a manufactured drug as defined in sec. 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1930 Now according to P. W. 4 Jadavji Trivedi who is Assistant Chemical Examiner at Baroda the sample that was sent to him was opium containing 5. 7% of morphine. He admits in his cross-examination that he had analysed the substance only to find out the percentage of morphine. He is unable to say as to what else the substance contained. In order to show that the substanc
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.