Summarize the following court judgment. iminal Appeal No. 69 of 1956. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 18	 1955	 of the Orissa Hioh Court at Cuttack	 in Criminal Revision No. 20 of 1955 arising out of the Judgment and order dated December 23	 1954	 of the Court of the Sessions Judge at Sambalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 111(S) of 1954. Tara Chand Mathur and K. L. Arora	 for the appellant. N.S. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar for the respondent. August 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM J. This appeal by special leave is limited to the question ' whether transport includes possession	 and so the double punishment for possession and transport is not warranted by law 's stated in ground (xi) of the petition for special leave. On the facts found there can be no question that the appellant went in a rickshaw from the Sambalpur Road Railway Station to the State Transport Bus Stand with a trunk and a bedding in order to proceed to a place called Bargarh. He bought a ticket for Bargarh and took his seat in the bus after loading his trunk and bedding on top of it. On information received by the Officer in charge of Sadar Police Station of Sambalpur	 the bus was detained near the 148 1164 police station	 while on its way	 and all the trunks and beddings on it were unloaded	 and the passengers of the bus were asked to take their respective trunks and beddings. The passengers took their trunks and beddings. One trunk and a bedding	 however	 remained on the ground. The appellant claimed the bedding to be his own	 but denied the trunk to be his property. The bedding and the trunk were brought to the thana and the trunk was opened. The trunk contained opium weighing six seers and six and half chhataks. On the facts found	 the trunk was identified as that of the appellant	 and there can be no question that he was in possession of the opium. The only question for consideration	 having regard to the limited ground upon which special leave was granted	 is whether the appellant could also be punished for being in possession of opium	 as it is suggested that transport ' includes I possession '. The appellant was sentenced under section 9 (a) for possession ' of opium and under section 9(b) for 'transport ' of opium	 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months tinder each count	 the sentences to run consecutively. Section 4 of the Opium Act	 1878 (Act 1 of 1878) reads as follows: "Except as permitted by this Act	 or by any other enactment relating to opium for the time being in force	 or by rules framed under this Act or under any such enactment	 no one shall (a) possess opium; (b) transport opium; . . . . . . . . . It is clear from the provisions of section 4 that no one shall possess opium or transport opium	 except under the circumstances mentioned in the section. Section 9 provides that: " Any person who	 in contravention of this Act	 or of rules made and notified under section 5 or section 8 (a) possesses opium	 or (b) transports opium . . . . . . . . . . 1165 shall	 on conviction before a Magistrate	 be punished for each such offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year	 or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees	 or with both. " This was the provision in section 9 before its amendment by Act 111 of 1957 which provided that on conviction before a Magistrate	 a person convicted of any of the offences mentioned in section 9 shall be punishable for each such offence with imprisonment which may extend to three years	 with or without fine. We are	 however	 not concerned in this particular case with the punishment provided by the amendment	 as the offence was committed previous to it. The provisions of the Opium Act make it clear that possession of opium and transport of opium contrary to the provisions of the Act or any other enactment relating to opitum or to rules framed under the Act	 are two separate offences. Mere possession of opium may not	 on the proved facts of a particular case	 involve any question of transporting it. Transport of opium may	 in certain circumstances	 include the element of possession	 while in other cases	 it may not. A person may transport opium through various agencies and yet not be in possession of it at the time it was trans ported. On the other hand	 a person may transport opium and yet be in possession of it. In the latter case	 such a person would be guilty both of transporting opium and being in possession of it. Under the Act	 'transport ' means to remove from one place to another within the	 same State '. A person may remove opium and be in possession of it while removing it	 and he can also remove	 it from one place to another within the same State in circumstances when while removing it he is not in possession of the opium. The intention of the Legislature appears to have been that neither possession of doium nor transporting of opium was permissible	 if such possession or transporting was in contravention of the provisions of the Opium Act or any other enactment relating to opium	 or rules framed under the Opium Act. It seems therefore that where a person transports opium and is in possession of it at the time he was transporting it	 he has committed 1166 two offences	 viz.	 (1) of transporting opium; and (2) of possessing opium. He can therefore be convicted for both the offences. As to the sentence which can be imposed	 reference to section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 71 of the Indian Penal Code is necessary. Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that where a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences	 the Court may	 subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code	 sentence him	 for such offences	 to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict ; such punishments	 when consisting of imprisonment to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct	 unless the Court directs that such punishment shall run concurrently. Section 35 therefore permits the passing of separate sentences for different offences and for them to run consecutively unless the Court directs that they shall run concurrently. This	 however	 is subject to the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code provides: " Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts	 any of which parts is itself an offence	 the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences	 unless it be so expressly provided. Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished	 or where several acts	 of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence	 constitute	 when combined	 a different offence	 the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for any one of such offences. " It is clear from these provisions that where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished	 the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the 1167 Court which tries him could award for any one of such offences. The maximum sentence which could have been imposed upon the appellant for any one of the offences of which he had been convicted was one year 's imprisonment. In other words	 even if separate sentences were passed under section 9	 sub sections (a) and (b)	 the sum total of these sentences should not exceed one year 's imprisonment. In the present case	 the sentence imposed upon the appellant has been in all 6 months	 3 months ' imprisonment under each count. It would appear	 therefore	 that the sentence passed upon the appellant did not contravene the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code. In our opinion	 the appellant 	 %	as rightly convicted under section 9 (a) and (b) of the Opium Act	 and there has been no illegality in the sentence imposed upon him. It was strongly urged on behalf of the appellant that there might be a reduction in the sentence. Instead of a sentence of imprisonment being imposed	 the appellant may be sentenced to a substantial fine. In our opinion	 offences against the Opium Act are serious ones	 and we cannot accede to the request made. A sentence of 6 months ' imprisonment cannot be considered as unduly severe. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The appellant was caught while he was himself transporting opium. He was convicted under section 9(a) of the Opium Act for posession " of opium and under section 9(b) of the Act for " transport of opium and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under each count	 the sentences to run consecutively. The appellant contended that " transport " included " possession " and so the double punishment for possession and transport was not warranted by law : Held	 that possession of opium and transport of opium are two separate offences and the appellant could be convicted for 1163 both the offences. Transport of opium may	 in certain cases	 include the element of possession	 and in other cases	 it may not. A person transporting opium through other agencies may not be in possession of it at the time it was transported. But a person transporting opium himself would be in possession of it and would be guilty of both offences. The sentence passed upon the appellant did not contravene the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 71 provides that where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of the law	 the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than that provided for any one of such offences. Though separate sentences were passed against the appellant unders .9(a)and(b)	the sum total of these sentences did not exceed one year 's imprisonment the maximum provided for any of these offences.