Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: P. Venkatachallam Chetti

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 07, 1914
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/818228

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Opium act (i of 1878), section 9 - mere contemplation of violating a rule, whether punishable. -

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: P. Venkatachallam Chetti

Legal References

Reported In
25Ind.Cas.995

Excerpt

opium act (i of 1878), section 9 - mere contemplation of violating a rule, whether punishable. - 1. the petitioner has been convicted of an offence under section 9 of the opium act for possessing one seer of opium in contravention of the opium rules. the possession of the opium is admitted: in fact the petitioner himself took it to the tahsildar's house at nellore and produced it. it is further proved, and not denied, that a license, exhibit a, had been issued authorizing him to transport this identical opium from nellore to his (petitioner's) shop at allur. the petitioner's story of how exhibit a got out of his possession may or may not be true and there may be ground for suspecting that he contemplated a breach of the opium rules, as surmised by the lower courts. but it cannot be said that up to the time he handed the drug over to the tahsildar, he had contravened any rule.2. the conviction must be set aside and the fine, if paid, refunded. we also set aside the order of confiscation of the opium.

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act for possessing one seer of opium in contravention of the Opium Rules. The possession of the opium is admitted: in fact the petitioner himself took it to the Tahsildar's house at Nellore and produced it. It is further proved, and not denied, that a license, Exhibit A, had been issued authorizing him to transport this identical opium from Nellore to his (petitioner's) shop at Allur. The petitioner's story of how Exhibit A got out of his possession may or may not be true and there may be ground for suspecting that he contemplated a breach of the Opium Rules, as surmised by the lower Courts. But it cannot be said that up to the time he handed the drug over to the Tahsildar, he had contravened any rule.

2. The conviction must be set aside and the fine, if paid, refunded. We also set aside the order of confiscation of the opium.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial