1. The revision petitioner stands convicted by the Principal Sub-Magistrate, Calicut under S.8(1)(a) of the Prohibition Act, 1950 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

Inspector of Police, Calicut Town stopped and searched his person at about 7 P.M. on 30-3-1963 near the first Railway Gate, Calicut. He pleaded not guilty but was convicted and sentenced as noted above. His appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malappuram was also unsuccessful.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that prosecution has not proved that the substance recovered from the accused is 'Ganja'. P.W.1 gave evidence that a small paper packet recovered from the accused's pocket contained a lump of ganja which he recognised by its characteristic smell. P.W. 2 a witness to the search and seizure also gave his opinion that the substance in the packet was ganja. Though both the witnesses claim to be familiar with ganja there is a significant contradiction between their opinions for whereas P.W. 2 would have it that ganja is'like leaves' P.W.1 is sure that ganja is never seen as leaves. The learned defence counsel argues that