ORDER : Accused Montier was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sendhwa, for offences under S.9(a), (b) and (c), Opium Act, and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for four months under each count and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- for each of the offences. In default of payment of fine the accused was to undergo a further term of simple imprisonment of two months for each of the offences. He was further convicted under S.46(2) of the and sentenced to two months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/-. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Against this decision the accused preferred appeal to the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Judge set aside his conviction under the provisions of the latter Act. He also set aside the conviction of the accused under S.9 (c) but maintained his conviction under S.9 (a) and (b) of the Opium Act. He further passed a single sentence of four months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine the accused was to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 3. Aggrieved by this decision the State has preferred this revision petition. 4. Firstly it was contended that separate sentences ought to have been awarded in respect of each of the offences under S.9 (a) and (b) instead of a single sentence. Secondly it was contended that the sentence awarded was grossly inadequate. 5. So far as the question of enhancement of the sentence is concerned it might be stated that the State has submitted a revision application in the Court of Session but that was belated and for that reason it was rejected. The learned Sessions Judge did not think it proper to issue notice to the accused for enhancement of the sentence. 6. As regards the first contention I do not see much force in it. Section 71, I.P.C., provides that 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 of his offences, unless it is so expressly provided. No express provision in this connection has been brought to my notice by the learned Deputy Government Advocate. No express provision in this connection has been brought to my notice by the learned Deputy Government Advocate. The offences under S.9(a) and (b), Opium Act, are such that the offence of transporting opium in this case would involve the offence of possessing the same. Under these circumstances S.71, I.P.C. would be applicable and the awarding of single sentence therefore cannot be objected to. 7. As regards the enhancement the learned Deputy Government Advocate suggested that since the quantity of opium attempted to be transported was considerable therefore a heavier sentence is called for. However I am sitting to hear the case in revision and unless there are reasonable grounds to hold that the sentence awarded is grossly inadequate interference in revision is not called for. Although in this case the sentence might be said to be a bit lenient it cannot be said that it is grossly inadequate. 8. For reasons I see no force in this revision petition. 9. It is accordingly rejected. Revision dismissed.