Judgment V. Mishra, J. 1. The petitioner has been convicted under Sec.47 (a)of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months both by the trial court and the lower appellate court. 2. The simple case of the prosecution is that on 29-4-75 at 11.30 a. m. the Excise Inspector, Rajeshwar Prasad Sharma (P. W.3) alongwith some members of his staff raided the house of the petitioner and recovered there from one tin containing 88 litres of illicitly distilled Mahua liquor and 80 Kgs of Mahua Jawa. the articles were seized and a seizure list was prepared. The inspector tested the liquor with hydrometer and finding it illicitly distilled liquor, prosecuted the petitioner for the same. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court accepting the submission of P. W.3 relying on the test conducted by him found it to be illicitly distilled liquor and convicted and sentenced him as said above. 3. The only point that arises for decision here is whether the conviction based on the type of test adopted by P. W.3 is legal or not. I have been taken through the evidence of P. Ws.1 and 3 on the point. P. W.1 is the orderly of the Inspector who has only said about the recovery of the articles, the sealing of the tin etc. He had also signed the seizure list. P. W.3 is rajeshwar Prasad Sharma, the Inspector of Ecise. In paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief he has said that the Mahua liquor was tested by him and was found to be of 75 U. P. strength. In cross-examination (Part III)he has said that he tested the liquor with hydrometer and litmus paper. He has clearly admitted that he did not perform any other test. Here itself it may be mentioned that the witness has not said in his evidence as to whe ther he has been specially trained in the art or not. The courts below have relied upon his evidence as the opinion of an expert under Sec.45 of the evidence Act. It is necessary according to that section that the person who claims to be the expert should satisfy the court that he is specially skilled in the science. The courts below have relied upon his evidence as the opinion of an expert under Sec.45 of the evidence Act. It is necessary according to that section that the person who claims to be the expert should satisfy the court that he is specially skilled in the science. Only saying that P. W.3 is an Excise Inspector does not mean in the eye of law that he is specially skilled the science of testing liquor. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon certain authorities to say that it was necessary for the witnesses to have taken oath on the point. In an Allahabad case of Pitambar V/s. State, 1975 Cr LJ 948, a single Judge it has been held that the Excise Inspector in a case like this has to say about his qualification or his experience how long he has been in service and as to how many samples he has tested. I do not think it was necessary for the excise Inspector to state how many samples he has tested and how long ex perience he had but of course it was necessary for him to say that he had been trained in this particular art of testing. There are other authorities on the point also which it is not necessary to cite but the evidence as it does not con form to the requirement of Sec.45 of the Evidence Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the hydro meter test done by the Inspector cannot be taken as a sufficient test for dec laring the liquor recovered to be illicitly distilled liquor. In support of this he has relied upon the case of State V/s. Madhukar Gopinath Lolge, AIR 1967 Bom 61 . It has been laid down there that hydrometer test cannot determine if a particular liquor contains alcohol. That can be determined only by chemical analysis it is found to contain alcohol then of course hydrometar test would be relevant to find its strength. Reliance has also been placed on a Division Bench authority of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of the State of Haryana V/s. Radhey Shyam, 1977 Cr LJ 528. In that case ic was from the smell tests and examination with the help of hydrometer set that opinion had been formed about the liquor in question. Reliance has also been placed on a Division Bench authority of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of the State of Haryana V/s. Radhey Shyam, 1977 Cr LJ 528. In that case ic was from the smell tests and examination with the help of hydrometer set that opinion had been formed about the liquor in question. Such tests were not held to be conclusive. Their Lordships have fully explained the use of hydro meter and have said that the apparatus may be used in distilleries for finding out facts where there is no dispute about the liquor or spirit. They have said that this hydrometer test cannot be infalliable where the nature of liquid is not certain before testing it. Reference has also been made in that autho rity to the standard laid down by Indian Standard Institution (I. S. I.) which also does not accept the hydrometer test as a sure test. The learned counsel for the State also drew my attention to the fact that apart from hydrometer test, litmus paper test was done in this case.1 am afraid that was only for sacertaining whether the liquid was acidic or not. 5. In the instant case there is no evidence even to say that the Inspector smelt it or tested it. They are all confirmatory tests but the most important test is the chemical test which has not been done. 6. In view of my discussions aforesaid it is clear that the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the liquor recovered from the petitioners house was illicitly distilled Mahua liquor or an intoxicant. In this view of the matter the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt. 7. The revision is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He is discharged from his bail bond. Revision allowed.