Judgment R.A.Misra, J. 1. The accused Lal Bahadur has preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 22nd of May 1981 passed by Sri U. S. Pandey, IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 1980 and confirming the applicant's conviction and sentence to undergo RI for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 60 of the U. P. Excise Act. 2. The facts which have given rise to this revision are put briefly as below. Shiv Murat PW 1 and Sudhakar Chaube (not produced), the two police Constables were returning from patrol duty on 8-8-1979 when they learnt from an informant that the accused was carrying illicit liquor in a bag. The Constables consequently collected Mohd. Nazir PW 2 and Yusuf PW 3 as witnesses and took their position near the culvert of a canal. The accused reached there at about 11.30 A. M. and made an attempt to escape on seeing the police party. He was arrested after a brief chase and a bag containing three bottles of illicit liquor was recovered from his possession. Recovery memo was prepared then and there and the incriminating articles were kept in a sealed cover. The accused along with the aforesaid articles was carried to the Police Station where first information report was lodged. The case was investigated and the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the accused. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty and contended to have been falsely roped in the case due to enmity. 4. The prosecution examined Shiv Murat PW 1, Mohd. Nazir PW 2 and Yusuf PW 3 as witnesses of fact. Suresh Chandra Chaturvedi PW 4, Excise Inspector was produced as an expert to prove that the article recovered was illicit liquor. Rajendra Prasad PW 5 is a formal witness. THE learned Magistrate on a consideration of the entire evidence arrived at the conclusion that the three bottles recovered from the possession of the accused cantained illicit liquor. He has consequently convicted and sentenced him of the same. His appeal to the court of Sessions has been dismissed by Sri U.S. Pandey, Additional Sessions Judge on 25th of May 1981. Hence this revision. The findings of fact arrived at by the court below are based on the evidence of three eye witnesses-Shiv Murat, Mohd. Nazir and Yusuf. He has consequently convicted and sentenced him of the same. His appeal to the court of Sessions has been dismissed by Sri U.S. Pandey, Additional Sessions Judge on 25th of May 1981. Hence this revision. The findings of fact arrived at by the court below are based on the evidence of three eye witnesses-Shiv Murat, Mohd. Nazir and Yusuf. Their depositions are corroborated by the recovery memo and the first information report. Under these circumstances the findings of fact arrived at by the court below do not suffer from amy kind of illegality or irregularity and cannot be interfered with in revision. 5. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the courts below have relied upon the evidence of PW 4 Sri Suresh Chandra Chaturvedi, an Excise Inspector to believe that the three bottles recovered from the possession of the applicant contained illicit liquor. IT has been contended that the articles recovered have not been sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and in the absence of the evidence of the Chemical Examiner the courts below have erred in believing the evidence of Sri Chaturvedi PW 4 who happens to be an Excise Inspector. I have given my most thoughtful consideration to this aspect, 6. Sri Suresh Chandra Chaturvedi PW 4 has been produced by the prosecution as an Expert. He has deposed to have examined the contents of the three bottles and on a thorough analysis arrived at the conclusion that they contained illicit liquor. He prepared the report. He has proved the report and has further deposed that the bottles contained illicit liquor. In his cross-examination he has disclosed that he has received Departmental training for analysing such contents and has an experience of this work for about 5-1/2 years. He has deposed to have properly analysed the contents and has given the details thereof in his report aswell as in the deposition recorded by the court below. The fact that he has received Departmental training for this purpose and has experience of about 5-1/2 years to his credit goes unchallenged in his cross-examination. He has deposed to have properly analysed the contents and has given the details thereof in his report aswell as in the deposition recorded by the court below. The fact that he has received Departmental training for this purpose and has experience of about 5-1/2 years to his credit goes unchallenged in his cross-examination. The courts below under these circumstances have rightly taken him as an expert having received Departmental training and having experience of 5-1/2 years to his credit and have, therefore, rightly placed reliance on his report and deposition that the three bottles recovered from the possession of the applicant contained illicit liquor. Observations made in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Madiga Boosenna, AIR 1967 SC 1550 are clearly distinguishable from the facts of this case. In that case there was a general statement in the evidence of the witnesses Nos.1 and 4 that there was a strong smell of alcohol, emanating from the tins, which were pierced open, and there was no other satisfactory evidence to establish that the article was one coming within the definition of the expression " liquor ". In the instant case there is the evidence of an Expert though he has received only Departmental training and has the experience of only 5-1/2 years to his credit. The evidence of an Expert cannot be brushed aside simply because he has received Departmental training and has to his credit an experience of only 5-1/2 years, more so when his ability as an Expert and the authenticity of his report and opinion goes unchallenged in his cross-examination. I, therefore, find no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the applicant that the courts below have erred in placing reliance on SRI Chaturvedi PW 4 as an Expert. In the result the findings of the courts below that illicit liquor has been recovered from the possession of the applicant is proved beyond doubt. He has been rightly convicted and sentenced of the same by the courts below. 7. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is an youngman of about 30 years age. No previous conviction is proved against him. I agree that no useful purpose is likely to Deserved by keeping him in jail for a short period of three months. 7. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is an youngman of about 30 years age. No previous conviction is proved against him. I agree that no useful purpose is likely to Deserved by keeping him in jail for a short period of three months. On the other hand he is likely to come into contact with the harden criminals in jail during the short period and that may have adverse effect on his future life. Under these circumstances I agree that it would be expedient in the interest of justice to release him on probation of good conduct for a period of six months instead of requiring him to serve out the sentence atonce. The revision shall, therefore, be allowed accordingly. 8. The revision is partly allowed, The conviction and sentence passed against the accused applicant Lail Bahadur is confirmed but instead of requiring him to serve out the sentence atonce he is directed to be released on a probation of good conduct for a period of six months subject to his executing personal bond of Rs. 500/- with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of court below to appear and receive the sentence when called upon and meanwhile to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Revision partly allowed.