ORDER K.L. Shrivaitava, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment and order dated 6-6-1984 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1984 where by the petitioner's conviction under Section 34 (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 (for short 'the Act') and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs.200/-, in defeult to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 40 days passed by the learned trial Magistrate have been maintained. 2. According to the prosecution case on 22-2-1978 at 6.00 p.m. the Excise Inspector Rajendrapalsingh (P. W. 2) along with some members of the staff and panch witnesses raided the hotel in Malipura, Ujjain and the petitioner was found present at the counter and several bottles of low duty paid liquor were recovered from his possession. 3. At the conclusion of the investigation, the petitioner along with one Yogeshkumar (the proprietor of the hotel since acquitted in appeal) was prosecuted with the result already stated. 4. The case of the petitioner in the trial Court was one of denial. His version was that he was not present at the counter and he could not say whether signature on seizure memo. Ex. P.1 was his. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that provision of section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') and the provisions of Section 54 of the Act were not followed and the search is illegal. It has also been contended that it has not been established that the liquid in the bottles seized was liquor. According to him the bottles were not found in the premises of the hotel but they were in the premises of adjoining liquor shop and the petitioner has been falsely implicated. 6. The point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed. 7. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is a limited one and finding of fact is not to be interfered with unless substantial failure of justice has been occasioned. 8. In the instant case the evidence that petitioner was found. In possession of the bottles in question is on firm foundation. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of the chemical analysis it cannot be held that liquid in the bottles seized was liquor cannot be accepted. 8. In the instant case the evidence that petitioner was found. In possession of the bottles in question is on firm foundation. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of the chemical analysis it cannot be held that liquid in the bottles seized was liquor cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the respondent rightly contended that though there was no chemical analysis, the chemical test and other tests were applied and the conclusion that the liquid was liquor is on firm foundation. On the basis of the decision in Kallukhan v. State of M.P. [ 1980 JLJ 509 ] the version of the Excise Inspector that the liquid was liquor can safely be relied upon. 10. This brings us to the contention regarding illegality of the search as there is no credible material that reasons for inability to obtain search warrant were recorded as required under section 54 of the Act. 11. Section 54 of the Act being special prevision excludes Section 165 of the Code. The Excise Inspector Rajendrapal Singh has stated that he had recorded reasons for not obtaining search warrant. There is nothing on record to corroborate this version of his. Nothing of the sort has been produced on record. It has, therefore, to be held that search was illegal. However, the Illegality of search may help an accused in relation to an offence under Section 353 of the I.P.C. but it can be of no avail to him where illegal search bas yielded material for prosecution for an offence under Section 34 (a) of the Act. 12. As a result of the foregoing discussion I hold that despite Illegality of search, the prosecution for the offence under Section 34 (a) of the Act is not vitiated. 13. For the foregoing reasons I held that the petitioner's coviction is on firm foundation. 14. This bring us to the question of sentence. The offence in question is of 22.2.1978 and several years have rolled by. The liquor in question was not illicit. The petitioner bas had a taste of jail life in connection with the offence and it is not desirable that he is sent back to prison. 14. This bring us to the question of sentence. The offence in question is of 22.2.1978 and several years have rolled by. The liquor in question was not illicit. The petitioner bas had a taste of jail life in connection with the offence and it is not desirable that he is sent back to prison. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone and the amount of fine deserves to be increased in order to meet the ends of justice. The sentence of imprisonment is accordingly reduced and the fine is increased from Rs.200/ to Rs.1000/-. 15. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, the revision fails and is dismissed.