JUDGMENT S. Malik, J. - This is an application in revision by Pyara Singh and another against the judgment dated February 27, 1968 passed by Shri Chandra Prakash, Sessions Judge, Mathura, upholding the conviction of the applicants under Section 9(A) of the Opium Act (Act I of 1878) and the sentence of eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,0001- passed by the trial court. 2. According to the prosecution, a certain quantity of opium was recovered from the possession of each of the two applicants from inside the attachee case carried by each of them on February 6, 1967. To prove that the recovered article was opium the prosecution examined only the Excise Inspector. It does not appear that the recovered article was chemically tested. The courts below found that it was opium merely because the Excise Inspector said so. It was brought to the notice of the Court that a prayer was made by the defence as well as the prosecution to have samples of the recovered article sent to the Chemical Examiner for a report as to whether the recovered article was opium as defined in Section 3 of the Opium Act. Though on July 27, 1967 the trial court allowed the prayer, it appears that subsequently the recovered article was never sent to the Chemical Examiner. 3. It was rightly argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that a bald statement of the Excise Inspector that the recovered article was opium, does not prove the ingredients enumerated in Section 3. In order to prove that the article recovered from either of the two applicants was really opium, the prosecution had to prove that the recovered article came under the definition of `opium' given in the said section. In order to prove that the article recovered from either of the two applicants was really opium, the prosecution had to prove that the recovered article came under the definition of `opium' given in the said section. According to Section 3 of the Opium Act, 'opium' means: (i) the capsules of the poppy (papaver somni ferum L.), whether in their original form or cut, crushed a powdered, and whether or not juice has been extracted therefrom; (ii) the spontaneously coagulated juice of such capsules which has not been submitted to any manipulations other than those necessary for packing and transport; and (iii) any mixture, with or without neutral materials, of any of the above forms of opium, but does not include any preparation containing not more than 0.2 per cent of morphine, or a manufactured drug as defined in Section 2 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930. 4. From what has been quoted, it is apparent that a mere statement by the Excise Inspector that the recovered article was opium does not satisfy the requirements of law. Under the circumstances, it could not be said that the prosecution proved that the article recovered from the possession of the applicants was `opium' within the meaning of Section 3 of the Opium Act. 5. A request was made on behalf of the State that the case be remanded for retrial. Keeping in view the fact that the prosecution was negligent and did not adduce necessary evidence. and the fact that considerable time has elapsed since the article recovered from the possession of the applicant, it would be harassment of the applicants if the case is remanded. 6. I, therefore, allow the revision application, set aside the conviction and sentences of the two applicants and acquit them. If either of them has deposited any portion of the fine to which they were sentenced, the same shall be refunded. The applicants are on bail. They need not surrender and their bail bonds are discharged.