JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore, upholding the order of conviction and sentence imposed on him by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak. 2. The fact of the case may be stated in brief. P.W. 1, a Sub-Inspector of Excise received information that the Petitioner was engaged in illicit distillation of country liquor near a Nala of village Nachhipur. Accompanied by P.W. 2, a constable, he arrived at the place on 18.13.1979 at about 6.45 a.m. and noticed from a distance that the Petitioner Was actually engaged in illicit distillation of country liquor. When he proceeded to the spot, the Petitioner fled away leaving behind the earthern vessels and fermented mahua flowers, which Were seized by P.W. 1 by seizure list (Ext. 1). It was not possible for him to transport the earthern vessels and the fermented mahua flowers and so after keeping samples thereof in bottles, he destroyed the rest. After close of investigation, he submitted prosecution report against the Petitioner for an offence u/s 47(f) of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act ('Act' for short). The plea of the Petitioner during trial was denial simpliciter. 3. The learned Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect that P.W. 1 in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 made seizure of the earthern vessels and the fermented mahua flowers near a Nala of village Nachhipur by the seizure list (Ext. 1) and the Petitioner Was engaged in illicit distillation of country liquor and when he found the excise staff approaching, he ran away from the spot. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner raised the following contentions: (1) the prosecution did not prove that the earthern vessels and the fermented mahua flowers were used by the Petitioner for illicit manufacture of country liquor: (2) the material objects seized were not produced before the Court for proof as exhibits to facilitate it to form an opinion that the implements, as well as, the fermented mahua flowers were used for illicit distillation of country liquor; and (3) the Petitioner was not engaged in illicit manufacture of country liquor on the date and at the time of the alleged occurrence, and it was not possible on the part of P.Ws. 1 and 2 to identify him a long distance. 5. 1 and 2 to identify him a long distance. 5. Consideration of the first two points raised by the learned Counsel does not present any difficulty and can be conveniently disposed of together. Not only the learned Courts of fact concurrently found that a large number of earthern vessels and a huge quantity of fermented mahua flowers were seized in the presence of P.W. 3, an independent witness; but also it is apparent from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that actually the material objects were seized. The evidence of these witnesses is worthy of credit and has been accepted for cogent reasons I would, therefore, hold in agreement with the learned Courts below that a large number of earthern vessels and a huge quantity of fermented mahua flowers were seized near a Nala of village Nachhipur on the date and at the time of the Occurrence by P.W. 1. 6. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision reported in XLV (1978) C.L.T. 80, Budumuru Jagannadham v. State of Orissa, and urged that as the earthern vessels and the fermented mahua flowers were not produced in the Court, it could not have been possible on the part of the learned Courts below to formulate an opinion that country liquor was being illegally manufactured. In the reported case, a few foreign liquor bottles were not produced during trial and exhibited as evidence for the purpose of identification. It was, therefore, contended before a learned Judge of this Court that the prosecution failed to establish that the bottles seized from the house of the accused contained foreign liquor. It the facts and circumstances of that case, the learned Judge accepted the contention and acquitted the accused. The same principle cannot, however, be made applicable to the facts of the present case which are quite distinct. In this case, a large number of earthern vessels and a huge quantity of fermented mahua flowers were seized and it was not possible for P.Ws. 1 and 2 to transport the same from a lonely place so as to be produced in the Court. Therefore, they were destroyed then and there after keeping samples of the fermented mahua flowers. It is to remember that in rural areas of this State mahua flower is ordinarily used for three purposes. 1 and 2 to transport the same from a lonely place so as to be produced in the Court. Therefore, they were destroyed then and there after keeping samples of the fermented mahua flowers. It is to remember that in rural areas of this State mahua flower is ordinarily used for three purposes. First, poor people consume the same on occasions as food mixed with molasses; second it is used as fodder for the cattle and third, mahua liquor is manufactured by fermenting mahua flowers, In the present case, the seizure of earthern vessels used for preparation of liquor and fermented mahua flowers of a huge quantity from the place of occurrence has been believed. These facts are indicative of illicit manufacture of liquor from out of fermented mahua flowers. It is, therefore, difficult to disbelieve hat fermented mahua flowers were put to innocent use. On the other hand, the facts established as referred to above present sure signs of illicit distillation of country liquor. In view of these facts, I do not consider that it is a fit case to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution case for non-production of the seized articles in the Court. 7. The learned Counsel referred to the evidence of P.W. 1 where he stated that he saw the Petitioner from a distance of 200 to 300 yards and seeing his approaching, the Petitioner ran away from the spot. It was, therefore, urged that from such a long distance even in daylight it was not possible for a normal person to identify another. In this connection, it is worthwhile to quote the following from a volume called. Gross all Criminal Investigation (5th, Edition) by Richard Leofric Jackson at page-159: It is appropriate here to call attention to what has been said about the distance of which we can recognise persons. Presuming the eyesight to be normal and the light good, one is able to broad daylight to recognise: (a) Persons whom one knows very well, at a distance of from fifty to ninety yards; when there are particular and very characteristic signs 110 yards: in exceptional cases up to 165 yards. (b) Persons one does not know very well and has not often seen, from twenty-eight to thirty-three yeards. (b) Persons one does not know very well and has not often seen, from twenty-eight to thirty-three yeards. (c) People one has only seen once, sixteen yards: It may be difficult for a normal person to recognise another from a distance of 200 to 300 yards while he is running away. After all, P.W. 1 and the Petitioner were not well known to each other, nor had they friendly relationship so that even from the physical features and the gait of the Petitioner, he could have been recognised from such a long distance. In any event, there is enough room to doubt about correct identification of the Petitioner by P.W. 1 from such distance. May be, the Petitioner Was the person who ran away or the may not have been the person who ran away at the sight of P.W. 1 approaching the spot. This being the position, it will be unsafe to uphold the order of conviction and sentence despite the seizure of incriminating materials used for manufacture of country liquor. In the result, the impugned orders of conviction and sentence are set aside and the Petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He be set at liberty. Fine, if realised, shall be refunded, Bail bond is discharged.