1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted following points in support of the revision application :-

(a) that the recovery of the impugned articles from the possession of the accused is not proved inasmuch as all the Motbars in whose presence the articles are said to have been recovered have not supported the recovery and the statements of the Excise Officers should not have been relied upon particularly when they have not furnished a copy of the information memo, on the basis of which the recovery was made ;

(b) that no charge of possession of Bhang having been framed against the accused, his conviction under section 34 (a) of the Excise Act is not sustainable ;

(c) that the conviction under section 7 (a) and (b) of the Opium Smoking Act for the alleged possession of smoking opium and pipe for the purpose of smoking opium is bad inasmuch as it has not been established that the substance recovered was smoking opium and/or that the pipe alleged to have been recovered was for the purpose of smoking opium;

(d) that the conviction under section 9 (a) of the Opium Act is also not sustainable because it has not been proved that the substance recovered had the properties of