JUDGMENT - A.D. TATED, J.:---This revision application is directed against the conviction of the petitioner-accused under section 67 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dindori, in Criminal Case No. 50 of 1981, decided on 24th September, 1982, which was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, in Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1982 decided on 6th October, 1983. The accused has been sentenced for the said offence to suffer R.I. for three and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or, in default, R.I. for one month. 2. The prosecution case in brief was that on information the P.S.I., R.V. Bival (P.W. 3) attached to the Wani Police-Station, on 17th July, 1981 at about 7 p.m. raided the house of the petitioner-accused situated at Bazar Galli, Wani, and the house search was taken in the presence of the panchas Trimbak Hari Bomble (P.W. 1) and Mohan Bhika Bagul (P.W. 2), after the accused was informed about the purpose of the raid. In the search two plastic buckets containing ghasti which was denatured spirit diluted with water containing alum and French polish collectively 25 litres, one tin containing French polish about 18 litres and one tin barrel with capacity of 216 litres that could be used for the purpose of manufacturing ghasti, two empty tins, one tin bucket, one tin of round size containing 10 kg. of ash, one aluminium small tin containing 14 packets of alum, one aluminium jar, one tray and four glasses were found. Sample from the bucket was collected in two separate bottles. Sample from tin was also collected in two separate bottles and they were sealed and labelled bearing signatures of the panchas and the Police Sub-Inspector. The remaining contraband liquid was destroyed. The panchnama Ex. 6 was drawn up. Photograph of the accused was also taken. The accused and the muddemal property were taken to the police-station and P.S.I. Bival, submitted his report Ex. 9. On the basis of the said report, offence under section 67 of the Act was registered against the accused and after necessary investigation charge sheet was filed against him. 3. The defence of the petitioner-accused was of complete denial. He denied that the property was found at his house. No witness was examined in defence. 4. 9. On the basis of the said report, offence under section 67 of the Act was registered against the accused and after necessary investigation charge sheet was filed against him. 3. The defence of the petitioner-accused was of complete denial. He denied that the property was found at his house. No witness was examined in defence. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, on considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, held that the prosecution satisfactorily proved the charge levelled against the petitioner-accused. Therefore, he convicted the accused and imposed the sentence mentioned above. The appeal preferred by the accused to the Sessions Court, Nasik, was dismissed. 5. While admitting this revision application a suo motu notice for enhancement of sentence was issued and it has been registered as Criminal Revision Application No. 329 of 1984. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused contends that the prosecution led no evidence to prove that the house searched by the police belonged to the accused and that it was occupied by him at the time of the raid. The courts below have accepted the testimony of P.S.I. Bival (P.W. 3) and the two panchas Trimbak (P.W. 1) and Mohan (P.W. 2) and held that the house raided by the police was occupied by the accused and the accused was present at the time of the raid. On going through the evidence of P.S.I. Bival and the panchas Trimbak and Mohan I find that they had been to the house of the accused. The shop of the accused was also there and the accused was present. There is nothing in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. It is not necessary that the prosecution should always file extract from the Gram Panchayat or Municipal records to prove that the house in question belonged to the accused. Consequently I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution failed to prove that the premises raided were not in the occupation of the accused and the property found therein was not in his possession. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused next contends that the panchnama of the seizure of the property was not prepared at the raided premises but it was prepared at the police-station and, therefore, it was doubtful that the property was seized from the possession of the accused. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused next contends that the panchnama of the seizure of the property was not prepared at the raided premises but it was prepared at the police-station and, therefore, it was doubtful that the property was seized from the possession of the accused. He also submitted that the samples were lying at the police-station in Muddemal Room till they were sent to the chemical analyser and the person in charge of the muddemal room was not examined and, therefore, the possibility of tampering with the muddemal property could not be ruled out. P.S.I. Bival (P.W. 3) deposed that the samples were taken and sealed and the panchnama Ex. 6 was prepared at the spot. However, the panch Mohan (P.W. 2) in his cross-examination stated that all the articles were stated to the police-station and the panchnama was prepared there. Panch Trimbak (P.W. 1) also states that the seals on the samples were placed in the police-station. The property and the accused were taken to the police-station. Both the panchas were throughout present and in their presence the samples were sealed and the panchnama was prepared. Therefore, from the mere fact that the seals were put on the samples and the panchnama was concluded at the police-station, it cannot be held that the property was not found in the possession of the accused at the premises occupied by him. It is true that the sample bottles were lying in the muddemal room at the police-station till they were sent to the chemical analyser with police constable D.S. Junare (P.W. 4). The chemical analyser's report Ex. 10 shows that the sample bottles were sealed and the seals were perfect. Therefore, from the non-examination of the officer in charge of the muddemal Room at the police-station, it cannot be inferred that the samples might have been tempered with before they were sent to the Chemical Analyser. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused next contends that the sentence of R.I. for three months and a fine of Rs. Therefore, from the non-examination of the officer in charge of the muddemal Room at the police-station, it cannot be inferred that the samples might have been tempered with before they were sent to the Chemical Analyser. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused next contends that the sentence of R.I. for three months and a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default, R.I. for one month awarded to the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate is excessive, taking into consideration that the accused is aged about 35 years and his family consists of his wife and five children aged 8, 6, 4 and 2 years and one month, and he being the only earning member in the family, the learned Judicial Magistrate has awarded the minimum sentence required to be imposed for the first offence under section 67 of the Act. The family conditions of the accused mentioned in paragraph 5 of his petition cannot be said to be special and adequate reasons, in the circumstances of the present case. 9. In this case suo mote notice for enhancement of sentence was issued to the petitioner-accused. I do not think that in the circumstances of the present case enhancement of the sentence is called for. 10. In the result, both the revisions are dismissed and the rules are discharged. The petitioner-accused is granted one month's time to surrender. He shall be entitled to set-off as provided in section 428 Cri.P.C. Revision dismissed. -----