ORDER S.D. Singh, J. - The Applicant was convicted u/s 60(a) of the Excise Act and sentenced to two months' rigorous imprisonment. He went up in appeal. The Sessions Judge maintained the conviction but converted the sentence of imprisonment into one of a fine of an amount fixed by him at Rs. 200/- . The Applicant has come in revision and challenged the correctness of the finding that the article recovered from his possession was a prohibited article. 2. Seventy packets of charas, one packet (of ganja and three packets of bhang were alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the Applicant on 11-7-1966. The bhang which was found in his possession was less than the quantity which he was allowed to carry and the packets which were supposed to contain charas were found to contain some article which was not charas. No case could, therefore, be made out against the Applicant so far as these two articles were concerned. 3. The third packet which was supposed to contain ganja was believed by the Magistrate to contain that article, its quantity being two mashas. 4. The main argument advanced on behalf of the Applicant was that the particular commodity wks not proved to be ganja and that his conviction could not be justified on that account. The evidence to prove the identity of this particular article consists of the statement of U.S. Shukla, Excise Inspector, who deposed that he made no chemical analysis of the article and found it to be ganja merely by its sight and smell. He deposed that ganja has a characteristic smell which he could not describe in words. If the Excise Inspector made no chemical analysis of the substance and the main test applied for finding out whether the substance was ganja was that of its chacteristic smell, which could not be described by him in words, will amount to this that the words of Excise Inspector have to be accepted at their face value. A similar case came up before their Lordship is of Supreme Court reported in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Madiga Boosena and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1550 . There the article recovered was supposed to be some alcoholic liquor. A similar case came up before their Lordship is of Supreme Court reported in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Madiga Boosena and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1550 . There the article recovered was supposed to be some alcoholic liquor. The only evidence in support of the allegation that the subsistence recovered was alcohol was that there was a strong smell of alcohol emanating from the tins when they were pierced open. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that "merely trusting to the smelling sense of the Prohibition Officers and basing a conviction on an opinion expressed by those officers, under the circumstances, cannot justify the conviction of the Respondents." In this case also the prosecution desires the conviction to be based purely upon the opinion of the Excise Inspector and that opinion too merely on the basis of a data which could not be placed by him in court. Unless the Excise Inspector is able to place material or data on record, correctness of which may be open to scrutiny, it would be difficult to accept his bald statement that the substance examined by him was ganja. 5. The prosecution cannot be said to have succeeded in proving that the, article recovered from the possession of the Applicant was ganja. 6. The application is allowed. The conviction of the Applicant u/s 60(a) of the Excise Act and the fine imposed upon him thereunder are set aside. Any fine recovered from the Applicant would be refunded to him. Revision allowed.