Opium Act (I of 1878)
S.5—Opium
Orders, 1937, 0, 21. 66—Jurisdiction of Civil Court, how far barred.
Although rules may be made to regulate the sale
of opium, and as such sales are to be regulated by Licenses, rules may also be
made as to the form of Licenses and the conditions governing them it is
certainly beyond the power conferred by the Act to make a rule excluding the
jurisdiction of a Civil Court to decide whether a certain license is in
accordance with the Act. If, therefore 0. 21. 66, was intended to exclude any
jurisdiction, it is to that extent ultra vires of section 5 of the Act:
[(Kayani.
I.) West Punjab Government v. Akbar Hussain: PLD Lah. 430]
Ss. 9 &
10—Possession of boxes containing
poppy heads established—Burden of proving want of knowledge that the boxes
contained poppy-heads is on accused. Where it is established that the accused
was in possession of boxes which were found to contain poppy-heads, there is a
presumption under section 10 that the accused has committed an offence under
section 9. Burden is on the accused to prove that he did not know that the
boxes contained poppy-heads. In the absence of evidence to discharge that burden
the accused would be rightly convicted. 8 C W N 349 rel. 4 I C898; 13 I C 788
and A I R 1930 cal. 688 distinguished:
[(Akram,
Shahabuddin and Mohd. Sharif, JJ) Nazir Ahmad v. Crown : PLO 1955 F C 383]
S. 23—Arrear
of any fee or duty—Suit respecting, not competent in Civil Court.
In respect of a demand under the Opium Act a
suit is not competent in the civil Court. 73 PLR 1912 : AIR 1934 Lah. 157 (2);
27 Pun. Record 1876 and 54 Pun. Record 1885 ref:
[(Kayani,
J.) West Punjab Government v. Akbar Hussain : PLD 1952 Lah. 430]