JUDGMENT - PADHYE, J.:---This is an appeal against the conviction for offence under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act for being found in possession of illicit liquor. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused is a taxi-driver and had in his possession five cans of about 18 litres, each containing illicit liquor, four cans out of which were kept by him in the dicky, and one on the front seat. The Police-Sub-Inspector Patil was on a round on that day at about 8-30 a.m. in the morning, and the taxi of the accused, without any passengers in it, was going with speed and this aroused suspicion of the Police Sub-Inspector. He, therefore, gave chase but could not overtake it as the road through which it passed was a narrow one. Ultimately the taxi of the accused came to a halt as it was a dead end and the taxi could not proceed any further. On taking its search it was found that on the front seat there was a can, and in the dicky of the car, there were our more cans. On examination of the same it was found that it smelt like liquor. Therefore, the panchas were called through the head constable and the sample from each of the cans were taken in bottles. The five sample bottles as well as the plastic cans were sealed and labelled in the presence of the Panchas and the Panchanama was prepared and accused along with the cans were taken to the Police-Station. 3. The accused denied to have possessed these five cans as alleged by the prosecution. According to him, two persons hired his taxi and wanted him to go to the Victoria Terminus via-Parsi colony. He, therefore, took these persons in his taxi and took the taxi to the Parsi Colony. These two persons told him that they would bring their luggage. After some time those two persons brought two card-board boxes and kept them on the left side of his taxi outside the taxi. In the meanwhile the Police Officer came there and detained him. Thus, according to him, he did not himself possess these cans but they were the property of the passengers who had hired his taxi on that day. 4. The prosecution examined the Police Sub-Inspector Patil and one of the Panch-witness Hanumant Yeshwant Kale. In the meanwhile the Police Officer came there and detained him. Thus, according to him, he did not himself possess these cans but they were the property of the passengers who had hired his taxi on that day. 4. The prosecution examined the Police Sub-Inspector Patil and one of the Panch-witness Hanumant Yeshwant Kale. The panch-witness has turned hostile and was declared beside and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. The learned Judge believed the evidence of the Police-Inspector and has also relied on the part of the evidence of the panch-witness who had in his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor ultimately admitted the panchnama and on the basis of this evidence, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. 5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the evidence of the Police Sub-Inspector alone should not be accepted without any corroboration. According to him, there is no evidence to support the conviction of the accused and on the basis of the sole evidence of the Police Sub-Inspector, the accused should not be convicted. It is also urged that the prosecution has failed to examine the other panch-witness and has also not examined the messenger who had taken the sample to the Chemical Analyser for analysis. It has, therefore, been urged that it has not been proved that the samples which were taken from the taxi at the time of the incident were the samples which were sent to the Chemical Analyser for analysis, and therefore, the report given by the Chemical Analyser in this case cannot be related to the incident in question. 6. It is not the law that the evidence of the Police Officer alone cannot be accepted if it is otherwise reliable. Even on the sole testimony of Police Officer conviction could be based. It is, no doubt, true that during trial in this case the panch-witness Yeshwant Kale did not support the prosecution in his examination-in-chief and therefore, a prayer was made to cross-examine him. In the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, however, he has accepted the position that he has signed the Panchnama and that the contents of the same were correct. It is admitted by him that he was not forced or induced to sign the panchnama and further he knew the contents thereof. In the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, however, he has accepted the position that he has signed the Panchnama and that the contents of the same were correct. It is admitted by him that he was not forced or induced to sign the panchnama and further he knew the contents thereof. He further stated that the panchnama was read over to him and he signed it as it was correct. The panchnama mentions in details the events that have taken place. The Panchnama states that the Police took the search of the motor-car MRR 4546 in the presence of the Panchas. It further states that there were four plastic cans each containing 18-20 litres of illicit-liquor kept in a dicky of the taxi. It further states that there was one plastic can containing 18-20 litres of liquor kept near the drivers seat below, and in all 91 litres of liquor was found in the five plastic cans. Sample of liquor from each of the five plastic cans was separately obtained into five empty clean bottles and the sample bottles and the five plastic cans containing liquor were sealed and labelled with labels bearing Panchas signatures on the spot. All this has been admitted by the Panch Yeshwant Kale to be correct. In view of this admission, it cannot be said that there is no corroboration to the evidence of the Police Sub-Inspector or that the witness was not present at the place where the seizure was made. The evidence, therefore, would show that all the five cans containing liquor were found in the taxi itself and were taken possession of from the taxi---four from the dicky and one from near the front seat. In fact, it was not necessary to examine the second panch witness. Even if the evidence of this panch witness were not to be accepted even then there is nothing in the evidence of the Police Sub-Inspector as to why his evidence should not be accepted. He has given a graphic story as to how the chase was made and the accused was apprehended. There is not much cross-examination to the evidence of this witness. Though in a sense he may be interested in the case, his evidence need not necessarily be false. Therefore, there is no impediment in accepting the evidence of the Police Sub-Inspector. 7. There is not much cross-examination to the evidence of this witness. Though in a sense he may be interested in the case, his evidence need not necessarily be false. Therefore, there is no impediment in accepting the evidence of the Police Sub-Inspector. 7. The accused has taken a stand that the luggage belonged to the passengers. It may be noted that the accused has taken different stands at different times. According to him, two packages were brought by those persons, That is what he stated in his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. In the cross-examination of the Police-Sub-Inspector what was suggested to him was that two hand-loads were kept by some passenger near the taxi and it was further suggested that there were two other hand-loads already lying near the taxi. This case is different from the case which has been stated in the statement. Apart from this, if the evidence of the Police Sub-Inspector is accepted and also that of the panch, then this seizure was done from near the taxi itself and even the samples from the plastic cans were taken near the taxi itself. If the samples were taken, then the accused must have seen the plastic cans, and they could no longer be in the card-board boxes as contended by the accused. Even assuming that the seizure was not made there, but at the Police-Station, even then he could have seen the plastic cans containing something and not merely card-board boxes. But the denial of the accused about seeing the plastic cans makes the explanation given by the accused as an untrue explanation. 8. So far as the non-examination of the messenger who took the samples to the Chemical Analyser is concerned, I do not think that in any way weakens the case of the prosecution. The samples were sent along with the forwarding letter and that forwarding letter reached the Chemical Analyser as in apparent from the report of the Chemical Analyser itself. In the report he has made a reference to the forwarding letter and given the number thereof. He found the articles properly sealed and tallying with the copy of the seal which was sent, and the sample bottles were also properly sealed and labelled before he broke them open. On examination he found that the bottles contained ethyl alcohol ranging from 24% to 26%. He found the articles properly sealed and tallying with the copy of the seal which was sent, and the sample bottles were also properly sealed and labelled before he broke them open. On examination he found that the bottles contained ethyl alcohol ranging from 24% to 26%. I do not, therefore, see any infirmity in the case of the prosecution on account of the non-examination of the messenger who had taken the bottles to the Chemical Analyser. The report also shows the crime Register Number under which the bottles were sent. The report also mentioned the number of the forwarding letter in the report of the Chemical Analyser. These bottles, therefore, were of the crime in question and are properly connected with the accused. 9. I, therefore, do not see any error in the judgment of the trial Court in holding the accused guilty of the offence with which he was charged. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The accused to surrender to his bail within a fort-night. -----