The opinion of an experienced and specially trained officer is acceptable as expert evidence to establish the identity of I.D. liquor. Mere years of service alone do not qualify an officer as an expert. The prosecution must establish the officer's special skill or training to rely on their opinion as expert evidence.

JUDGMENT :

B. Panigrahi, J. - The petitioner, having been aggrieved by the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence u/s 47(a), Bihar and Orissa Excise Act dated 14-4-1993 by the Sessions Judge, Jeypore, has preferred this revision. The petitioner was prosecuted u/s 47(a) of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1947 and after trial, was convicted and sentenced to undergo S. 1. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo S. 1. for one month more,

2. The facts leading to the prosecution against the petitioner are described hereunder: PW 1, an A. S. I. of Police, Jaypore town P. S. while conducting patrol duty intercepted the petitioner who was found moving in a suspicious manner with a motor tube containing some liquid substance. In presence of witnesses, on search, the motor tuba contained I. D. liquor measuring 25 litres. PW 1 prepared the seizure list in presence of other prosecution witnesses, namely, PWs 2 to 4 and sent the sample for examination by the Excise Sub-Inspector, Jeypore, On examination; PW 5 noticed that the tube contained I. D. liquor. PW 6 was satisfied with the examination by hydrometer and litmus paper tests and confirmed that the motor tube contained I.D. liquor. Thereafter the petitioner was challenged to the Court and on completion of trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jeypore having been satisfied with the materials recorded the conviction u/s 47(a), Bihar and Orissa Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentenced him to undergo S.1 for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs. 600/-, in default of the same, S. 1. lot one month more. The petitioner basing aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, preferred an appeal before the Sessions judge, Jeypore which ended with the same result. Being aggrieved by the. judgments of both the Courts below, She petitioner has preferred this revision.

3. Mr. Patnaik the learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced several contentions. He strongly urged that the prosecution having failed to send the sample to the chemical analyst, litmus paper test and hydrometer test conducted by the Excise S. 1. was not sufficient to come to a reasonable conclusion that the petitioner was possessing I. D. liquor. It is further argued that the learned Courts below have committed . gross illegality in implicity relying on the evidence of the prosecution whose version is inconsistent and untrustworthy, as such not free from comment.

4. The learned Additional Government Advocate while supporting the judgment of the Courts below, has, however, advanced his contention that in this case, the prosecution has proved that the petitioner was in conscious possession of S.D. liquor. In view of the consistent evidence of PWs 1 to 4, both the Courts below did not find any other alternative than to hold that the accused petitioner was possessing I. D. liquor.

5. The prosecution has examined PWs 3 and 4 who are alleged to be independent witnesses, over and above, the police officials, PWs 1 and 2. On a cursory glance of the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, it appears that the accused who was moving with a motor tube was intercepted and detained, On search, it was found that he was possessing some liquid substance. This aspect of the case received ample corroboration from the testimony of the independent witnesses PWs 3 and 4. In the above context, I am of the view that there was no infirmity in the prosecution story regarding the search and seizure of the materials from the petitioner,,

6. it is next to be considered whether the liquid contained in the motor tube said to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner was I.D. liquor. The prosecution has laid much emphasis on the testimony of PW 5. PW 5 is the Excise official and it is said that he is the most competent person to examine and certify whether the liquid in question is I. D, liquor or not. According to the Additional Government Advocate, chemical analysis of the liquid is not sine qua