JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a petition, in revision against a judgment of a First Class Magistrate of Bolangir convicting the Petitioner u/s 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise. Act and sentencing her to pay a fine of Rs. 40/- (Rupees forty only). A revision petition was filed before the learned Sessions Judge who while refusing to make a reference to the High Court made some observations in favour of the Petitioner. 2. The fads as found by the trial court are that on 10-0.1958 an Excise S.I. (Mr. V.S. Patnaik)(p.w. 1) searched the house of the Petitioner in village Nuapara at about 1 p.m. and recovered from a room therein four earthen jars full of outstill liquor, one empty pot, one bottle of outstill liquor, and three empty bottles smelling of liquor. A seizure list was prepared in due course. But when the raiding Excise party proceeded with the seized articles they ware attacked by two of the accused persons, named Ramchandra Prasad and Bholanath Singh and the jars of liquor were said to have been broken and the liquor destroyed. Those two persons were also jointly tried with the Petitioner for the offence u/s 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act but were acquitted by the Magistrate but I understand that a separate case is pending against them for assaulting the Excise party. 3. The Main question for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the liquor seized from the house of the Petitioner was really outstill liquor. On this point, apart from the testimony of the Excise Section I. there is no corroborative evidence. The search witnesses (p.w. 2 to 4) have not stated that the liquid seized was outstill liquor. On the other hand p.w. 2 deposed to the effect that the liquid looked like water. Whether these witnesses had been gained over by the accused or not is not very material. The evidence of the Excise S.I. as regards the nature of the liquor seized might have been believed if the liquor had been ultimately produced in Court and tested in the usual way. Unfortunately this could not be done as it was destroyed by some other persons on the way. The result is that there is the bare uncorroborated testimony of the S.I. to certify to the nature of the liquid seized. Unfortunately this could not be done as it was destroyed by some other persons on the way. The result is that there is the bare uncorroborated testimony of the S.I. to certify to the nature of the liquid seized. In cross-examination this witness had to admit that apart from smell there was no other data on which he could say that is was outstill liquor. Various methods of testing liquor are prescribed in the Excise Manual but these tests were not applied. Under these circumstances the principle laid down in Dhobei Charan Meher v. State ILR 1959 Cutt 29 may apply here and it must be held that the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Petitioner was in possession of the liquor. The petition is therefore, allowed, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the Petitioner is acquitted. Petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed