JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. S. K. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. S. Acharya, P. P. for the State and perused the judgment of the Courts below. 2. Upon perusal of the Judgment, I am satisfied that Chhagansingh petitioner was rightly held guilty of an offence under Sec. 4 (2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 for having been found in possession of an earthen pitcher full of Lahan and half bottle containing illicit liquor, is fully proved by the evidence of Tulsi Ram, S. H. O. Taranagar (P. W. 7), Ghan Shyam (P. W. 5) and Mansingh (P. W. 3). 3. Both the courts below have relied upon the testimony of these witnesses relating to the recoveries of Lahan and illicit wine and I see, absolutely, no reason to disturb their findings in exercise of revisional powers. The sample of Lahan and liquor were sent to the Chemical Examiner, Jaipur through Jeewandeen (P. W. 4) in sealed condition for analysis. The Chemical Examiner analysed the sample and declared that the sample of liquor and Lahan contained 55.33% and 98.59% respectively under proof ethyl alcohol. There is no reason to disbelieve the report of the Chemical Examiner. The petitioner denied the recovery of Lahan and illicit liquor from his possession. He led evidence in his defence but both the courts below, rightly held that the prosecution succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the earthen pitcher containing Lahan and half bottle of illicit liquor were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. 4. Mr. S. K. Goyal contended before me that there is no proof on the record about the samples having been sent in sealed condition to the Chemical Examiner. The above contention has no force because there is the evidence of Jeewandeed (P. W. 4), who had taken the samples in sealed condition to the Chemical Examiner. The Chemical Examiner also did not say in his report that the seals on the samples were found broken or tampered with. Consequently, I do not see any ground for interference with the findings of both the courts below as to the petitioners guilt. The Chemical Examiner also did not say in his report that the seals on the samples were found broken or tampered with. Consequently, I do not see any ground for interference with the findings of both the courts below as to the petitioners guilt. As regards the sentence passed against the petitioner it may be observed that Proviso 2 of section 4 of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act clearly lays down that for an offence of possessing the liquor, the sentence to be imposed upon the accused shall not be less than six months imprisonment and a fine not less than Rs. 200/-. The Sessions Judge, while maintaining the conviction of the petitioner under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act has already reduced the sentence to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. The sentence is, therefore, not severe. The result is that the revision has no force and hereby, dismissed summarily.Revision dismissed. *******