JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioners have preferred this revision against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, dated 19-11-1976 by which their appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of which to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of one month to each of the petitioners under Section 54(a) of the Excise Act was maintained. 2. The facts are these. That A. S. I. Sadhu Singh with some constables reached bus-stand Sahibsinghwala at 11 A.M. on 17-7-1971. They apprehended the petitioners who were carrying liquor bottles. Petitioner Ram Jas had 12 liquor bottles of pineapple and petitioner Mohanlal was found with 13 bottles of green liquor. Both the petitioners were arrested. The liquor bottles were seized and sealed and one bottle of pineapple and another bottle of green liquor were sent to the Chemical Examiner. A. S. I. Sadhu Singh then lodged the F. I. R. in Police Station Matili Rathan. The Chemical Examiner and the Chief Public Ananlyst found that the sample of these two bottles contained 44.64% U. P. alchohol. The learned lower court believed the prosecution evidence and convicted and sentenced the petitioners as stated above. 3. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record of the case carefully. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint was put up in the court by A.S.I. Sadhu Singh. Under the law he was not competent to do so and therefore, no cognizance on the complaint presented by him could be taken by the learned Magistrate. The argument is misconceived in asmuchas the complaint was signed by S.H.O. Shri Jagdish of Matili Rathan. 4. It is then contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that samples from only two bottles were sent for Chemical examination. It, therefore, cannot be said that the rest of the bottles contained alcohol. I have considered the argument which has no force. Test examination in such circumstances was sufficient. Furthermore each of the bottle recovered from the possession of the petitioners were sailed bearing the seal of Rajasthan Excise Department. This would conclusively show that these bottles contained liquor and nothing else. Thus the prosecution has proved that these bottles containing the liquor of the Rajasthan Excise Department were recovered from the possession of the petitioners. 5. Furthermore each of the bottle recovered from the possession of the petitioners were sailed bearing the seal of Rajasthan Excise Department. This would conclusively show that these bottles contained liquor and nothing else. Thus the prosecution has proved that these bottles containing the liquor of the Rajasthan Excise Department were recovered from the possession of the petitioners. 5. It is lastly contended that the offence took place in the year 1971. The petitioners have faced a protracted trial. The liquor was not illicit. The petitioner have suffered substantive sentence of more than a month and, therefore, the substantive sentence be reduced to the period already undergone. Looking to the above circumstances I am of the view that the substantive sentence awarded to the petitioners may be reduced to the period already undergone. 6. In the result the revision petition is rejected. However, the substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by each of the petitioners. Fine if not paid, be deposited in the trial court within three weeks.Revision rejected. *******