Order.- In C.C. No. 558 of 1971 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamkhandi, the accused (revision petitioner) was convicted under section 34 of the Mysore Excise Act, 1965 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month more. 2. The case went up in appeal to the Sessions Court, Bijapur in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1971. The Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, dismissed the Appeal. 3. Briefly, the prosecution case is that on 27th October, 1970, at about 5 p.m when the Excise Inspector (P.W. 1), along with this staff and panchas (one pancha being P.W. 2) went to Gothu village on an excise raid, he apprehended the accused, who was carrying a motor tube on his shoulder containing 4 litres of I.D. Liquor. The Assistant Chemical Examiner, Belgaum has issued a certificate that the sample of the contents of the tube sent to him contained alcohol, 4. Both the Courts below have held that so far as the question of possession of the tube containing liquor is concerned, there is conclusive evidence. Sri S.K. Kulkarni, petitioner’s learned Advocate, did not, and I feel, rightly assail that finding before me. His grievance was about the application of the presumption under section 40 by both the Courts below. It may be mentioned here itself that the plea of the accused, both when the substance of the accusation was put to him, and when he was questioned under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was one of complete denial. 5. The learned Sessions Judge observes: “...Thus when once the possession of an intoxicant is proved, it is for the accused to account for the possession of it satisfactorily”. The contention of Sri Kulkarni that even if the prosecution proves possession, it must further prove that the accused had knowledge that the intoxicant was unlawfully manufactured, cannot be sustained. The ruling in Attirappa Channiah v. State of Mysore1, has no application to the facts of the present case. As rightly urged for the State, when once possession of the intoxicant is proved, the presumption under section 40 of the Mysore Excise Act comes into operation, and it is for the accused to account, satisfactorily for its possession. 6. The ruling in Attirappa Channiah v. State of Mysore1, has no application to the facts of the present case. As rightly urged for the State, when once possession of the intoxicant is proved, the presumption under section 40 of the Mysore Excise Act comes into operation, and it is for the accused to account, satisfactorily for its possession. 6. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that no interference is called for in provision. This revision petition fails and stands dismissed. The petitioner will undergo the sentence imposed on him. S.V.S. ----- Revision petition dismissed.