JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is preferred by accused Dhanraj against the judgment dated December 15, 1977 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Udaipur, whereby his appeal was dismissed and his conviction was upheld but the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which, further simple imprisonment for one month, under section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts are these. On November 17, 1970 Excise Inspector Dilip Singh arranged the raid on the house of petitioner in village Kharpina. Nothing incriminating was found in the house except an empty vessel smelling liquor. The petitioner was arrested on interrogation he gave information to the Excise Inspector that some articles for the purpose of manufacturing any excise article and five drums of wash were lying concealed at Parwara Khadra. In consequence of the information the implements for the purpose of manufacturing any excise article and five drums of wash were recovered. Sample of the wash taken from each drum and duly sealed. The samples were sent for chemical examination by a special messenger Dalpat Singh, from the report Ex. P. 8, it appears that these samples were found to contain underproof ethyl alcohol. It further appears from the report that the samples were reached as late as on January 25,1971. During the trial one of the motbirs P.W. 1 Manoharlal turned hostile but P.W. 5 Ganesh Chandra, another motbir supported the prosecution case. That apart P.W. 6 Dilip Singh, P.W. 3 Devraj and P.W. 4 Parbatsingh, the Excise Officials were examined to prove the offence. The learned trial court and the learned appellate court believed the prosecution evidence and held the petitioner guilty in the manner stated above. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that evidence regarding the fact that the seals were not tampered with till it reached the office of the Chemical Examiner is lacking in the case. The argument has no force because it appears that the sealed samples remained in the custody of Dilip Singh and he handed them over to Dalpat Singh who delivered them in the office of the Chemical Examiner. The argument has no force because it appears that the sealed samples remained in the custody of Dilip Singh and he handed them over to Dalpat Singh who delivered them in the office of the Chemical Examiner. It is next argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the samples were not delivered in the office of the Chemical Examiner promptly. The recovery was made on November, 17, 1970 and the samples reached the office of the Chemical Examiner on January 25, 1971. This fact according to the learned counsel for the petitioner throws a doubt that probably the seals of the samples were tampered with. I have considered the argument carefully. No doubt inordinate delay in sending these sealed samples for chemical analysis is a relevant consideration and sometimes may lead to an inference that the seal might have been tampered with. However, each case would depend on its own facts. Dilip Singh was not cross examined to explain the delay in sending these samples I am, therefore, of the opinion that in this case it is not of much relevance. It is lastly argued that the Excise Inspector did not comply with the provisions of section 47 of the Rajasthan Excise Act because he has not regarded that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording the offender an opportunity of escape or of concealing evidence of the offence. In my opinion this argument has no force inasmuch an before talking the search, the Excise Inspector in Ex. P. 7 recorded his reasons for not obtaining the search warrant. On the question of sentence it is contended that the offence took place in the year 1971. The petitioner has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for about two months. It would be therefore, inequitable to send him back to the prison for a short period in the year 1981. I am inclined to agree with this contention. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed but the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him However, the sentence of fine awarded by the appellate court is maintained.Revision dismissed. *******