JUDGMENT T.S. Misra, J. - The applicant been convicted under sections (a) and (f) of the U.P. Excise and has been sentenced to ergo one year's rigorous imprisonment for each of two offences with the aid of section 69 of that Act in view of his previous conviction under the Excise Act. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was as follows : 2. On 10th November, 1970 Abid Nasir Khan, Excise Inspector, with the help of S. I. Sri Shabbir Hussain of P. S. Ujhani, and other members of the public searched the house of the applicant and found three Kanisters each containing about 23 bottles of illicit liquor, one big drum containing about 100 litres of Lahan Sheera, one tin Bhapka, one tin Nalka and one small Chaharu drum in possession of the applicant. It may be stated at this place that Lahan Sheera, Bhapka, Nalka and the Chaharu are materials, implements and apparatus used for the purpose of manufacturing liquor and the possession of the same is punishable under section 60 (f) of the aforesaid Act. The applicant denied the prosecution case and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined Abid Nasir Khan, Shabbir Hussain and Mulaim Singh in support of its case. Mulaim Singh, however, did not support the prosecution story fully and was declared hostile. The applicant examined Kalyan in defence. The learned Magistrate, on an appreciation of the evidence on the record, found the applicant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. The applicant then filed an appeal which was dismissed. He has now come to this Court in revision. 3. It was urged on behalf of the applicant that the prosecution had failed to make out a case under section 60 (a) of the said Act. The prosecution did examine Abid Nasir Khan, Excise Inspector, who had conducted the test of the contents of the Kanisters and had submitted his report opining that the recovered Kanisters contained illicit liquor. It was urged on behalf of the applicant that inasmuch as it was not established that Abid Nasir Khan had wide experience in conducting the test and was otherwise an expert his testimony and report could not be treated as the opinion of expert admissible under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is force in this contention. It was urged on behalf of the applicant that inasmuch as it was not established that Abid Nasir Khan had wide experience in conducting the test and was otherwise an expert his testimony and report could not be treated as the opinion of expert admissible under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is force in this contention. Abid Nasir Khan did not state about his academic qualifications, expert knowledge and experience in testing as to whether a particular article was liquor and illicit liquor. The learned counsel for the placed reliance on S.E. Fatra v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 639 In that case the Excise Inspector, who was examined as a prosecution witness, had at the very outset of his evidence stated that he had put in 21 years service as Excise Inspector and had tested lacs of samples of liquor and illicit liquor. This statement was questioned. In these circumstances that particular Excise Inspector was treated as an expert within the meaning of section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the instant case there is nothing on the record to show as to how many years of service as Exercise Inspector had been put in by Abid Nasir Khan and as to how many samples he had actually tested before. There is no other evidence on the record to speak about the academic qualifications and experience of this particular Excise Inspector. It is therefore, not possible to treat this particular Excise Inspector Abid Nasir Khan as an expert under section 45 of the Evidence Act. That being so, his report and the statement, would by themselves be not sufficient to hold that the contents of the Kanisters were illicit liquor. There is no other evidence on the record to reach that conclusion. In the circumstances the conviction of the applicant under sub- section (a) of section 60 of the U.P. Excise Act cannot be maintained. 4. The applicant was also charged for the offence committed under sub-section (f) of section 60 of the said Act for having been found in possession of materials, implements and apparatus for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than Tari. 4. The applicant was also charged for the offence committed under sub-section (f) of section 60 of the said Act for having been found in possession of materials, implements and apparatus for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than Tari. Both the courts below have, on a careful scrutiny of the evidence come to the conclusion that the applicant was found in possession of the said apparatus, materials and implements used for the purpose of manufacturing liquor and I find no reason to interfere with this finding. In the circumstances the conviction of the applicant under section 60 (f) of the U.P. Excise Act and the sentence passed thereunder has to be maintained. 5. In the result, the revision application is partly allowed, the conviction of the applicant under section 60 (a) of the U.P. Excise Act and the sentence passed thereunder are set aside. How. ever, the conviction of the applicant under section 60 (f) of the U.P. Excise Act and the sentence passed thereunder are maintained. The applicant is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to him. His bail bonds are cancelled.