JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Mst. Nathki has preferred this revision petition against the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated 15-1-1974 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 15/1973. The petitioner was convicted on 22-9-1973 under section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 1950 by the Excise Magistrate, Jodhpur, in criminal case No. 221/1972 and was sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days. She preferred an appeal which was heard and decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur and it was dismissed by him. 2. In brief, the facts of the prosecution case are that Bhim Singh Excise Inspector received an information on 15-3-1970 and in consequence thereof he made a raid at the house of the petitioner and found her distilling Illicit liquor ; at that time the utensils consisting of pipe, tube of iron, Tagari etc. were set up for the purpose of distilling liquor and she was found distilling illicit liquor. The wash was also found there and some illicit liquor which was distilled was also found. Samples were taken from both illicit liquor and wash and were sealed in the spot on the presence of the Motbirs. The Petitioner was challaned under section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. After trial, she was convicted and sentenced by the Excise Magistrate as aforesaid and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur on 15-1-1974. 3. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no evidence that the samples were sealed on the spot and the samples remained in safe custody and were not tempered with till they reached the hands of the Chemical Examiner. In the absence of such a proof, no conviction is possible. Further, there is also no proof whether the samples examined by the Public Analyst vide his report Ex. P. 4 were the same which were taken by the Excise Inspector on 15-3-1970 or that they were taken at any other time. Without this strict proof the report Ex. P. 4 cannot be read as evidence against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the State v. Motia and others, ILR (1953) 3 Raj. 655. P. 4 were the same which were taken by the Excise Inspector on 15-3-1970 or that they were taken at any other time. Without this strict proof the report Ex. P. 4 cannot be read as evidence against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the State v. Motia and others, ILR (1953) 3 Raj. 655. , Ratanlal v. State, 1966 RLW 451 , Maheshwar Prasad v. State of Raj., I. L.R. (1969) 19 Raj. 918 and Het Ram v. State of Rajasthan, W. L. N. (U.C.) 1974 p. 157. 4. I have gone through the statements of the prosecution witnesses namely - Kanaram P. W. 1, Mohan Prakash P. W. 2 and Bhira Singh, Excise Inspector P. W. 3. There is no other witness examined by the prosecution. From the statement of these witnesses, there is no evidence that the samples of the illicit liquor and wash which were taken on the spot by Shri Bhim Singh P. W. 3 were sealed then and there. There is also no evidence on record to prove that the samples so taken reached the Chemical Examiner in the same condition in which they were taken, la the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been made clear that whenever it is desired by the prosecution that certain articles which have been recovered from the accused persons and are to be sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis, it is necessary that the officer recovering the articles should immediately take steps to seal them ; and evidence should also be produced by the prosecution that from the time the articles recovered from the accused to the time they were sent for examination to the Chemical Examiner the seals remained intact. In the absence of such precautions it will always be open to the accused that the reliance cannot be placed on such recovery. Further it is also necessary for the prosecution to prove by evidence that the articles sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis were the very articles which were recovered from the accused. In the absence of such precautions it will always be open to the accused that the reliance cannot be placed on such recovery. Further it is also necessary for the prosecution to prove by evidence that the articles sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis were the very articles which were recovered from the accused. In Ratanlal v. State 1966 RLW 451 , it has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court that no doubt that the evidence that the samples of the incriminating article reached in the hands of the Chemical Examiner in the same condition in which it was taken by the Police Officer is formal, yet it cannot be dispensed with and in the absence of such an evidence, it is open to the accused to take a plea that the chemical examination report of the Public Analyst cannot be read against him. 5. Thus there is no evidence on record on behalf of the prosecution that the alleged liquor and wash were excisable article or that they contained any illicit-alcohol it was faintly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Excise Inspector Bhim Singh and Mohan Prakash are in service in the Excise Department for a sufficiently long time and their saying that the wash and liquor, recovered from the spot from the possession of the petitioner was illicit liquor and that should be taken as sufficient evidence. Shri Ram Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that these witnesses have also not deposed to the effect that the wash and liquor recovered from the possession of the petitioner was illicit liquor and they say so by their training or experience. They have simply pointed out the period of their service. But on what post they had been and whether they had received the training in the matter has not been proved by the prosecution so that their evidence may be read as an evidence of an expert witness. For this he had relied on State v. Sanwal Ram, W. L. N. p. 440. In that case it was observed by the Division Bench of this court as follows:- "The Excise Inspector does not even tell us if he had received any training in the matter of finding out whether a given liquid was or was not liquor leave alone the method by which he calculated the alcoholic percentage. In that case it was observed by the Division Bench of this court as follows:- "The Excise Inspector does not even tell us if he had received any training in the matter of finding out whether a given liquid was or was not liquor leave alone the method by which he calculated the alcoholic percentage. His evidence, therefore is in the nature of a bald opinion without there being any indication of the grounds by which we could accept him as an expert." 6. It was further observed, "In our opinion, the percentage of alcohol could -not be so calculated with any precision by mere visual observation as it appears to have been done in the case before us. There is no evidence on record to show that the liquid recovered from the possession of Sanwal Ram respondent was illicit liquor." 7. In me present case, mere is no such evidence of either Mohan Prakash or of Bhim Singh that they have received any training or that on the basis of their experience they depose that the liquid recovered from the possession of the petitioner was illicit-liquor. 8. Thus there is no evidence on record that the petitioner was distilling illicit liquor. The other articles recovered from the possession of the petitioner are articles ordinarily used for domestic purposes and in the circumstances, they cannot be taken as implements for manufacturing of exciseable article. In the circumstances of the case, the conviction and sentence against the petitioner are liable to be set aside. 9. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The convictions of the petitioner for the offence under section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, and the sentence passed against the petitioner are set aside. She is acquitted. The amount of fine, if paid, be refunded to the petitioner. She is on bail. She need not surrender and her bail bonds arc cancelled.Revision Allowed - Accused Acquitted. *******