1. Petitioner in Crl. R.P. 691 of 1986 was found guilty of the offence under S.55 (a) of the Abkari Act, by the courts below. His conviction is challenged in the revision petition. In Crl R. C. 99 of 1988, petitioner was directed to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced. Prosecution case is that on receiving information that petitioner had ganja with, him, his house was raided at or about 2.30p.m. on 21-7-83 by PW1 Excise Inspector and others. When PWs.1 and 2 entered the house, petitioner ran away. They seized 16 K.gms. of ganja from a bedroom in the house. Ext. P2 mahazar was prepared for the seizure and PWs. 3 and 4 are the attestors to Ext. P2. A samble of the article seized was sent for chemical examination, and by Ext. P3 it was reported that the samble analysed was ganja. On this evidence, courts below found the charge.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that identity of the person who ran. away from the house was not established. The evidence of PWl is to the effect that on seeing the excise party, 'joy (accused) ran away through the backyard of the house'. It is not possible to say that identity has not been established. Then, it was conten