JUDGMENT H. C. P. Tripathi, J. - This revision is directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Etawah, upholding on appeal the applicants conviction and sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 200/- as fine under Section 9(a) of the Opium Act as recorded by a Magistrate First Class on June 11, 1963. 2. According to the prosecution, the applicants house was raided by the Excise Staff who were accompanied by the witnesses on September 21, 1962 at about 10 a.m. on the basis of a search warrant which had been issued by a Magistrate, First Class of the district. On the personal search of the applicant 17 packets of opium weighing about two chataks were recovered from the pockets of his bandi and on a search of the house, from a room which was unlocked by the applicant, a jhola was recovered which contained 6 chataks of opium. A scale and some weighment measures were also found in the room. The two Excise Inspectors P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 who had conducted the search immediately examined the recovered opium and found it to be illicit. Thereafter, the opium was duly sealed in the presence of the witnesses and a recovery memo was prepared. The applicant was prosecuted on these allegations subsequently and has been convicted as indicated earlier. 3. At the trial, the applicant pleaded not guilty and asserted that he had been falsely implicated. According to him the opium had been recovered from the possession of Ajudhi (P.W. 3) and the weighment measures were sent for from the house of the applicant and he was asked by the Excise Inspectors to become a witness of recovery of the opium from Ajudhi and as the applicant refused to do so he had been falsely implicated in the case. He examined two witnesses in support of this version. The case of the prosecution rested on the testimony of the Excise Inspectors Tewari and Misra (P. Ws. 1 and 2), Ajudhi (P.W. 3) and Saraswati Prasad (P.W. 4) who were examined as eyewitnesses of the occurrence. Saraswati Prasad stated that a search did take place but nothing incriminating was recovered from the applicants house. Ajudhi fully supported the prosecution case. The. 1 and 2), Ajudhi (P.W. 3) and Saraswati Prasad (P.W. 4) who were examined as eyewitnesses of the occurrence. Saraswati Prasad stated that a search did take place but nothing incriminating was recovered from the applicants house. Ajudhi fully supported the prosecution case. The. learned Sessions Judge has, however, rejected his testimony as unreliable and has affirmed the conviction of the applicant relying on the testimony of the two Excise Inspectors alone. 4. Learned counsel of the applicant has argued that as the link evidence in regard to the movement of the recovered article has not been produced by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the same article which was recovered from the possession of the applicant was produced in the trial court and, therefore, the conviction of the applicant is not sustainable. This argument was advanced before the learned Sessions Judge as well and he has given good reasons for rejecting the same.. The opium which was alleged to have been recovered was immediately examined at the spot by the two Excise Inspectors who testified in court that it was an illicit opium. Once their testimony in that regard is held to be reliable, the production of link evidence regarding the movement of the recovered article from the place of recovery to the court becomes wholly superfluous. The entire matter hinges on the reliability or otherwise of the evidence furnished by the two Excise Inspectors. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has remarked that after going through the entire statement of those two witnesses he found no reason why they should not be believed. The fact that one of them had stated that he had unsuccessfully searched the house of the applicant on 2 or 3 previous occasions also did not detract the value of their testimony. On the other hand it shows that though one of them had conducted searches at the applicants house on previous occasions also but as nothing incriminating was found, he was not prosecuted. 6. Sitting in revision, therefore, I find no reason to differ with the assessment of their evidence as made by the counts below. 7. This revision has no force and is dismissed. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he should surrender forthwith to serve put the sentence.