Short Note : This revision by the accused-applicant is directed against the judgment dated 30-7-77 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Nimar Mandleshwar in criminal appeal No. 23 of 1977 arising out of the judgment dated 20-1-77 passed by the judicial magistrate first class, Kasrawad in Criminal case No. 137/76 convicting the applicant under section 34(a) of the M.P. Excise Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Pratapsingh Thakur (P.W.3) Excise sub-Inspector applied to the Judicial magistrate first class, Kasrawad for a search warrant of the house of one Chhogalal on the ground that illicit liquor was stored in his house. The house of Chhogalal was searched and illicit liquor was found in the house. Chhogalal was not present in the house at the relevant time. The applicant is the son of Chhogalal; he was present there. Both Chhogalal and the present applicant were prosecuted under section 34(a) of the M.P. Excise Act. Accused pleaded not guilty. After trial Chhogalal has been acquitted by the trial magistrate on the ground that he was not present in the house at the time of search, and therefore, it was not proved that he was in conscious possession of the excisable article. The applicant was, however, found guilty of the offence charged with and was sentenced as stated above. Held : It was contended by the learned counsel for applicant that it has not been proved that the applicant was in conscious possession of the article seized According to him the house belonged to Chhogalal in whose name the search warrant was obtained. In the circumstance of the case it cannot be said that the applicant was in exclusive possession of the house from which excisable articles were seized. Panch witnesses Chhogalal (P.W.1) and Hifazat Hussain (P.W.2) did not support the prosecution story. They stated that the search of the house was not taken in their presence. Pratapsingh (P.W.3) deposed that when he went inside the house he saw the applicant selling liquor to some person. That person was not apprehended and the article alleged to have been sold to him have not been seized. Lalsingh (P.W.4) has not supported Pratapsingh (P.W.3). Lalsingh (P.W.4) has categorically stated that he did not see the applicant selling any liquor. Pratapsingh (P.W.3) deposed that when he went inside the house he saw the applicant selling liquor to some person. That person was not apprehended and the article alleged to have been sold to him have not been seized. Lalsingh (P.W.4) has not supported Pratapsingh (P.W.3). Lalsingh (P.W.4) has categorically stated that he did not see the applicant selling any liquor. In the circumstances there is no convincing evidence that the applicant sold any excisable article to any person and the article alleged to have been sold by him was liquor. As that house belonged to Chhogalal it cannot be said that it was in the exclusive possession of the applicant. In the circumstances it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that applicant was in concious possession of the excisable article seized from the house and the conviction of the applicant cannot be sustained. Revision allowed.