ORDER Vijayvargia, J.- 1. This revision by the accused-applicant is directed against the judgment and order dated 7-11-77 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, in criminal appeal No 325 of 1975, arising out of the judgment and order dated 26-9-75 passed by the Judicial Magistrate first class, Biaora, in criminal case No. 475/74, convicting the applicant under section 34(a) of the M P. Excise Act, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The facts of the prosecution case may briefly be stated thus: On 31-10-75 Ramlal (PW 2) Excise Inspector received information that the applicant was in possession of illicit liquor. He, therefore, along with witnesses went to the house of the applicant. On search being taken of the applicant's house a tin containing about 12 bottles of illicit liquor was found. The material was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P-l. On examination of the seized liquid it was found to be illicit liquor. The applicant was, therefore, prosecuted under section 34(a) of the M. P. Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The applicant denied his guilt. After trial he has been convicted and sentenced as stated above. The appeal preferred by the applicant was unsuccessful and his conviction and sentence was maintained. The applicant has challenged his conviction and sentence in this revision. 3. Shri M. G. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the prosecution has failed to produce the notification issused by the Government under section 16 of the M.P. Excise Act and therefore an offence punishable under section 34(a) of the Act cannot be said to have been committed by the applicant. He next contended that the liquid seized from the applicant has not been proved to be illicit liquor because it was not chemically examined. The Excise Inspector Ramlal (PW2) applied the hydrometer, thermo-meter and litmus paper tests. According to the Learned counsel from the above tests it could not be determined whether the liquid seized was illicit liquor. He next contended that the liquid seized from the applicant has not been proved to be illicit liquor because it was not chemically examined. The Excise Inspector Ramlal (PW2) applied the hydrometer, thermo-meter and litmus paper tests. According to the Learned counsel from the above tests it could not be determined whether the liquid seized was illicit liquor. He placed reliance upon the decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Madiga Boosenna and others, A IR 1967 SC 1550, State v. Madhukar Gopinalh Lolge, AIR 1967 Bombay, 61, and a decision of this Court in Shareef Khan v. Stale of M. P., Criminal revision No. 257 of 1976, decided on 6- 7- 78 (Cr. LJ (MP) 1978 page 405). 4. As regards the first point, section 34 of the Act provides for penalty for offences under the Act. It provides - whoever in contravention of this Act, or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or given there under, or of any licence, permit or pass granted under this Act, imports, exports, transports, manufactures, collects or possesses any intoxicant shall be punished. Section 16(1) of the Act provides that the State Government may, by notification, prescribe a limit of quantity for the possession of any intoxicant. Sub- section (4) of section 16 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-sections, the State Government may, by notification, prohibit the possession by any person or class of person's, either in the State or in any specified area, of any intoxicant either absolutely, or subject to such conditions as it may prescribe. The argument of the learned counsel was that since the notification on prescribing the limit of quantity for the possession of any intoxicant or absolutely prohibiting the possession by any person or class of persons of any intoxicant has not been produced, it cannot be said that any offence has been committed by the applicant. As this point was not raised in the Courts below the Deputy Government Advocate produced the notification in this Court. The notification bearing No. 54-A/VSR dated 4-7-59 is issued by the Government of M. P. in the Separate Revenue Department and is published in M. P. Rajpatra dated 31-7-59 (part-I) page 1035. As this point was not raised in the Courts below the Deputy Government Advocate produced the notification in this Court. The notification bearing No. 54-A/VSR dated 4-7-59 is issued by the Government of M. P. in the Separate Revenue Department and is published in M. P. Rajpatra dated 31-7-59 (part-I) page 1035. Under Clause VIII (b) of the said notification it is provided that- 'no person shall possess any intoxicant in any quantity which has not been lawfully manufactured or lawfully obtained'. Clause V (1) of the said Notification provides that the limit of quantity for the possession of any intoxicant, except foreign liquor, shall unless otherwise notified, be the limit prescribed under section 5 of the Act as the limit of retail sale for such article. The limit of retail sale under section 5 of the Act has been prescribed by the said notification under Clause III which is much less than the quantity seized from the applicant. In the circumstance there is no substance in the first point raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 5. As regards the second question the learned counsel for the applicant contended that in this case the liquid seized from the possession of the applicant was not chemically analysed and the Excise Inspector gave his opinion on the basis of hydro-meter, thermo-meter and litmus paper tests from which it cannot be concluded that the article seized from the possession of the applicant was illicit liquor. According to him in the absence of chemical test it cannot be said that the article seized was liquor. He placed reliance upon the decisions referred to above. In AIR 1967 SC 1550 (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 10 of the judgment observed as follows: "Except for a general statement, contained in the evidence of the witnesses, particularly P, Ws 1 and 4, that there was a strong smell of alcohol, emanating from the tins, which were pierced open, there is no other satisfactory evidence to establish that the article is one coming within the definition of the expression 'liquor'. Merely trusting to the smelling sense of the Prohibition Officers, and basing a conviction on an opinion expressed by those officers under the circumstances, cannot justify the conviction of the respondents. Merely trusting to the smelling sense of the Prohibition Officers, and basing a conviction on an opinion expressed by those officers under the circumstances, cannot justify the conviction of the respondents. In our opinion better proof by a technical person, who has considered the matter from a scientific point of view, is not only desirable, but even necessary to establish that the article seized is one coming within the definition of 'liquor'." In Bombay case reported in AIR 1967 Bombay 61 (supra) on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the applicant it is held that the fact that a particular liquid was liquor or not can be determined only on chemical or idoform test and Syke's tests or hydrometer tests could not help in determining whether the liquid under consideration was really liquor or not. Both these cases were considered by the Supreme Court in a later case reported in Sri Chand Batra v. State of U.P, AIR 1974 SC 639 . In this case their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down as follows: "We think that it is not desirable to lay down an inflexible rule on questions of fact even though their determination requires the adoption of scientific methods and tests. It is really for the Court of facts to decide whether, upon a consideration of the totality o~ the facts in a case, it has been satisfactorily established that the objects recovered from the possession of the accused included liquor of prohibited strength." In the case before the Supreme Court the liquid in question was not examined chemically and the Excise Inspector applied only smelling test and hydro-meter tests to find out whether the liquid was illicit liquor. On the basis of these tests the Excise Inspector gave his opini0n that the liquid seized was illicit liquor. From this decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court it is therefore clear that in order to determine whether a particular liquid is liquor or not it is not absolutely necessary to get it tested chemically and it is really for the Courts of fact to decide whether upon a consideration of the totality of the facts in a case it has been satisfactorily established that the objects recovered from the possession of the accused was liquor of prohibited strength. This Court also, in holding in the case referred to above, that in order to determine whether a partcu1arliquid is a liquor or not, it is necessary to examine it chemically, has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1967 SC 1550 (supra). The later case of the Supreme Court in AIR 1974 SC page 639 (supra) was not brought to the notice of Vyas. J. who decided that case. The view that in order to determine whether a particular liquid is liquor or not chemical examination thereof is an absolute necessity has not been approved of by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in AIR 1974 SC page 639. 6. In the present case both the Courts below on consideration of the totality of the facts found that the article seized from the applicant is illicit y distilled liquor. The applicant also did not seriously dispute the question Ramlal (PW 2) who deposed that the article seized from the applicant was liquor and that he gave this opinion on testing the liquid by applying hydro-meter, thermo-meter and litmus paper tests, was not cross• examined by the applicant on this question. 7. In his examination under section 313, Cr. P. C. the applicant was asked that the witnesses have deposed that on test the article was found to be illicit liquor-what he has to say. His reply was that the servants of the liquor contractor and the liquor contractor had brought the liquor. His defence was also that the article seized was not recovered from his possession and that he was falsely implicated by the liquor contractor and servants of the liquor contractor. The fact that the article seized was liquor was not disputed by him. The defence of the applicant has been disbelieved by the Courts below. In the circumstances if on the totality of the circumstances and evidence on record the two Courts below came to the conclusion that the article seized from the possession of the applicant was illicit liquor it cannot be said that any illegality or impropriety has been committed by them in reaching the said finding. In the circumstances the Courts below were fully justified III convicting the applicant of the offence charged with. There is no ground for interfering with the conviction of the applicant. In the circumstances the Courts below were fully justified III convicting the applicant of the offence charged with. There is no ground for interfering with the conviction of the applicant. In the circumstance the sentence also does not appear to be excessive, it being the minimum sentence provided under the Act. 8. As a result of the discussion aforesaid this revision has no force and is dismissed.