JUDGMENT : Narasimham, J. - This is a revision petition against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Cuttack maintaining the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 9(a) of the Opium Act and 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act but reducing the sentence of imprisonment passed by a 1st class Magistrate of Banki. 2. On the 22nd of November, 1952, an Excise Sub-inspector (P.W. 5) searched the house of the Petitioner at about 7 a.m., and recovered 46 tola's of ganja and 6 tolas of bhang from a Handa (brass metal pot) kept under a cot in one of the rooms in the front side of the house of the Petitioner. The house was under the occupation of the Petitioner, his old father aged about eighty-five years and his son aged about twenty two years. When questioned by the excise staff, the Petitioner was said to have made a confession admitting that the opium, ganja and bhang had been kept by him in the room and that his father and son had nothing to do with those articles. All the three persons were sent up by the Excise Officer but the learned Magistrate acquitted the Petitioner's father Gopinath Sahu and his son Chandrasekhar Sahu but convicted the Petitioner relying mainly on the recovery of the excisable articles and the confession made by the Petitioner before the excise staff. The lower appellate Court maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence. 3. The main point urged by Mr. Das, on behalf of the Petitioner, was that the confession before the Excise Officer was inadmissible by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and that if the confession was excluded the residue of the prosecution evidence was wholly insufficient to fix the guilt on the Petitioner. The question as to whether an Excise Officer is a police Officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act has been the subject-matter of several decisions of the various High Courts of India. But the Patna High Court in a Special Bench decision in Radha Kishun Marwari Vs. Emperor, has held that an Excise, Officer is not a Police Officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and this view has been followed all along in the State of Orissa also. Mr. But the Patna High Court in a Special Bench decision in Radha Kishun Marwari Vs. Emperor, has held that an Excise, Officer is not a Police Officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and this view has been followed all along in the State of Orissa also. Mr. Das, however, urged the Patna view would require reconsideration in view of a latter Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Amin Shariff Vs. Emperor, and a recent decision of the Madras High Court reported in Public Prosecutor Vs. C. Paramasivam and Others. He, therefore, requested that this question may be referred to a Full Bench for decision. We are aware of the conflicting decisions of the various High Courts of India on this question. But the Patna view has been followed in this State for more than twenty-two years and though the opposite view may be said to be arguable, we are not satisfied that the present case would justify a reference of this question to a Full Bench for decision. We would, therefore, take the confession of the Petitioner,as admissible. 4. Mr. Das then contended that the examination of the Petitioner u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure was perfunctorily made and he was not specifically asked to explain the circumstances under which he made the confession, There is doubtless much force in this comment and if the record did not indicate that the Petitioner got an opportunity to explain the circumstances under which he made the confession, we might have been inclined to set aside his conviction and sentence, But we notice that the Petitioner was defended by a lawyer and that during the, cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses also an attempt was made to show that the confession was obtained by inducement, Moreover, the Petitioner examined two witnesses on his behalf to explain the circumstances under which the confession was made. Hence, though the learned Magistrate has committed a serious irregularity in not specifically asking the Petitioner during his examination u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure about the circumstances under which he made the confession we would not consider that irregularity to be fatal to the whole case in view of the fact that the Petitioner himself examined two defence witnesses to explain the confession. 5. 5. It was then urged that the circumstances under which the recovery of the excisable articles took place did not conclusively establish that those articles were in the possession of the Petitioner. As already pointed out, the three male members of the house were the Petitioner, his aged father and his young son. It appears that a pair of scales were produced before the excise party by the Petitioner's son. But the quantity of excisable articles that was recovered and the place where it remained concealed lead to a fair inference that the Petitioner must have been aware of the existence of those articles in his room. Whether he was, in fact, the Karta of the family or not, is not material for the purpose of this revision. The articles were recovered from a living room and they were found under such circumstances as would lead to a reasonable inference that the person who (sic-is) frequenting the room must have been aware of their existence. Taking all these into consideration and also giving full effect to the confession made by the Petitioner before the excise staff it cannot be held that his conviction for unlawful possession of the excisable articles was not justified. 6. The sentence errs on the side of leniency. The value of the excisable articles that were recovered is said to be more than Rs. 800/-. For offences of this type against public revenue, deterrent sentences should have been imposed. The learned Sessions Judge need not have reduced the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate. But as there is no petition by the State for enhancement of the sentence, we would not interfere with the order of the Sessions Judge. 7. The revision petition, is therefore, rejected. Rao, J. 8. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed