The lack of corroborative evidence, absence of chemical analysis, and non-production of seized property can be grounds for setting aside a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Das. J.

1. The petitioner has been convicted u/s 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one month more, by the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar. .Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar who has confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar. Hence, this revision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is now aged about 75. He challenges the order of conviction on the ground that the trial court should not have relied upon the version of the official witnesses in absence of any independent witness corroborating the said version P.W. 2 who is an independent witness being a person of the locality denied the case of the prosecution in toto so far as recovery of I.D. liquor from the house of the petitioner is concerned.

3. The alleged occurrence took place on 30.1.1988 when the S.I. of Excise along with his staff went to Atopur for patrolling. After getting information that there were some stocks of iflicit liquor in the house of the accused, they made a search and seized a plastic jar containing 5 liters of I.D. liquor from his house.

4. The prosecution in order to prove the case examined altogether three witnesses. One witness was examined from the side of the defence. Out of the witnesses so examined by the prosecution, P.W. 3 is S.I. of Excise, P.W. 1 is A.S.I, of Excise and P.W. 2 is an outsider.

5. The plea of the accused was of complete denial.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions. One is that there is no corroborative evidence to the version of the official witnesses. Second is, in absence of any chemical analysis of the seized liquor, it is unsafe to base the conviction purely placing reliance on the litmus paper test and hydrometer test. Another objection is raised that the seized property has not been produced before the Court. Though all these questions were raised before the trial court, according to the petitioner, the same were not dealt with in their proper perspective and in terms of the judicial pronouncements on the subject in question, for which, the order of conviction is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the findings recorded by both the courts below should not be disturbed by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. It is also submitted that it is not required to undertake the Chemical analysis of seized materials in every case. In the present case, the Excise Sub-Inspector in his evidence has stated that he had undergone distillery training and from his 26 years of experience, he could know that the seized article was I.D. Liquor.

8. In this case, P.W. 2 is an independent witness. He has stated that the Excise Officers had not seized any material in his presence. That apart, P.W. 1, who is the SJ. of Excise, in his deposition has stated that they got information that accused was in possession of I.D. liquor in his house. He made a raid of the residential premises of the accused and seized a plastic jar containing 5 liters of I.D. liquor from that house in presence of witnesses. After seizure, the same was tested with blue litmus paper, which turned red. The S.I. of Excise also tested the same in hydrometer and the strength became 71.9? U.P. P.W. 2, who is the seizure witness, has categorically denied the aforesaid fact. P.Ws. 1 and 3 though in their evidence stated that the liquor was seized in presence of witnesses, but except P.W. 2 no other witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W. 3 in his evidence has categorically stated that there are two rooms in that house and that he prepared the seizure list in the kitchen room, the place from where the said liquor was seized. It is also an admitted fact that the liquor was not sent for chemical examination. Learned counsel for the State submits that the