Thomson J:

The respondent in this case appeared before the Sessions Court at Parit Buntar on a charge of unlawful possession of chandu in contravention of s. 3(1) of the Opium and Chandu Proclamation, 1946. The Court found that the charge was proved and made an order that the respondent be "bound over under s. 18A". For what period, in what sum, with what sureties, if any, and subject to what conditions as to treatment for opium addiction the respondent was to be bound over, the order did not mention. The Deputy Public Prosecutor appealed against that order and I had no hesitation in quashing it and substituting for it an order that the respondent be convicted and undergo a sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment. I said I would state my treasons for the course I took at a later date. I now proceed to do so.

Under s. 3(2) of the Opium and Chandu Proclamation the only punishment prescribed for unlawful possession of chandu is imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. From that it is clear that the legislature intended that the offence should be regarded as one of considerable gravity.

The only cases in which a Court may refrain from inflicting a sentence o