031-NLR-NLR-V-56-J.-SAPI-NONA-Appellant-and-INSPECTOR-OF-POLICE-HORANA-Respondent.pdf
SANSONI J.—Sapi Nona u. Inspector of Police, Horuna
119
1954Present : Sansoni J.
J.SAP! NONA, Appellant, mul INSPECTOR OFPOLICE, HORANA, Respondent
S. C. 287—M. C. Horana, 16,Old
Poisons, Opium a>ui Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap. 172)—Section 32—“Raw orprepared opium ”.
In a prosecution for possessing raw or prepared opium in breach of section 32of the Poisons, Opium and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance it is sufficient for tliecomplainant to establish that the accused had opium in his possession ; he neednot give further particulars as to the species of opium.
,/^.PPEAL from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court, Horana.
R. A. Kannangara, with Eardley Perera, for the accused appellant.
E. H. C. Jayetileke, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vult.
October 5, 1954. Sansoni J.—
The accused appellant was convicted upon a charge of possessing rawor prepared opium in breach of section 32, (Cap. 172). The point arguedby her Counsel in appeal is that the only evidence regarding the Bubstancefound in her possession is to the effect that it was opium, without anyfurther particulars as to what form the opium took uud without any men-tion as to whether it was raw or prepared. This ijuestion has been raised
120
8ANSONI J.—Sapi Nona v. Inspector of Police, Harana
before in two oases, viz. De Neise v. Sambunathan 1 and Excise Inspectorof Nattandiya v. Somasunderam 2 decided in 1937. In both those casesthe substance in question was merely described by the GovernmentAnalyst and the Excise Inspector as “ opium ” without any furtherdetails as to wlint particular species of opium it was. Both Abrahams
J. and Soertsz J. examined the provisions of the Poisons, Opium andDangerous Drugs Ordinance ; they considered that the intention of thelegislature was to prohibit the possession of opium of any kind and forthiB reason they held in those cases that it was sufficient for the prosecu-tion to establish that the accused had opium in his possession.
I have been asked to reconsider the question in view of the wording ofsection 32 which mentions only raw or prepared opium. I have con-sidered the matter carefully and I would follow the opinions of thosetwo learned judges.
The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissal.
1 (1937) 9 C. L. IK. 116.
1 (1937) 9 G. L. W. 730.