JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The Petitioner has been convicted u/s 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months for being in possession of twenty kilogramms of Ganja in two gunny bags which was recovered from the car bearing registration number BRM 8413 on 23-11-1981 at 7.30 p.m. which was being driven by the Petitioner, by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jharsuguda, and on appeal, the conviction and sentence have been upheld. 2. According to the prosecution case, while the Petitioner was driving the vehicle in question, the excise officials intercepted the vehicle and recovered 20 Kgs. of Ganja kept in two gunny bags from inside the dicky of the vehicle and accordingly the Petitioner has committed the offence in question. 3. The defence plea is one of denial and according to the Petitioner nothing was recovered from his possession. 4. Three witnesses were examined for the prosecution and one for the defence. On consideration of the prosecution evidence both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that 20 Kgs. of Ganja was recovered from the possession of the Petitioner on the date of occurrence and accordingly the Petitioner's conviction has been maintained by both the Courts below. Admittedly, the Petitioner had no licence to carry the Ganja in question. 5. Mr. Nayak, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner assails the conviction of the Petitioner mainly on two grounds: (i) In the abeyance of a warrant to search, the excise officers not having recorded the grounds of their belief before searching, there has been an infraction of the mandatory requirements of Section 74 of the Act and accordingly, the conviction is vitiated: and (ii) There being no chemical analysis of the article that was seized, the prosecution has failed to establish that it is Ganja and accordingly the prosecution is bad. 6. In support of his first contention, the learned Counsel places reliance on the language of Section 74 of the Act as well as two decisions of this Court in Krushna Chandra Behera v. State 58 (1984) C.L.T. 201 and Kasinath Behera v. The State of Orissa 60 (1985) C.L.T. 510. 6. In support of his first contention, the learned Counsel places reliance on the language of Section 74 of the Act as well as two decisions of this Court in Krushna Chandra Behera v. State 58 (1984) C.L.T. 201 and Kasinath Behera v. The State of Orissa 60 (1985) C.L.T. 510. The aforesaid two decisions no doubt support the Petitioner's contention fully but I am in respectful disagreement with the views expressed therein. In both the aforesaid decisions, provisions of Section 70 of the Act have not been noted and the larger Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bai Radha Vs. The State of Gujarat, has not been noticed. In Harish Chandra Pandey v. State of Orissa Cr. Rev. No. 554 of 1981 - D/18-11-1985 disposed of by me on 18-11-1985. I have already held that in similar circumstances Section 70 of the Act would apply and not Section 74 and further relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Bai Radha Vs. The State of Gujarat. I have differed from the view taken in Krushna Chandra Behera Vs. State of Orissa. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, referred to above, the conviction cannot be held to be illegal for non-compliance of the provisions relating to search strictly. At any rate, since I have already held that Section 70 of the Act applies, the question of illegality of search does not arise. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on this score, therefore, must be rejected. 7. Coming to the second submission, the learned Counsel contends that the article which was seized from the possession of the Petitioner was not analysed and, therefore, it cannot be said that it is Ganja. Reliance has been placed in this connection on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Deosingh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1978 CriLJ 1218 . No doubt, the aforesaid decision support the contention of the learned Counsel to some extent. But in the Madhya Pradesh case, it was elicited' from the Excise Inspector in Court that he has never smoked Ganja nor does he know the different types of Ganja. In that context, the learned Judge held that the evidence in question does not satisfactorily establish that what was recovered was Ganja. But in the Madhya Pradesh case, it was elicited' from the Excise Inspector in Court that he has never smoked Ganja nor does he know the different types of Ganja. In that context, the learned Judge held that the evidence in question does not satisfactorily establish that what was recovered was Ganja. But an experienced excise officer can say from the smell as well as texture that the seized article is Ganja and such evidence can be accepted even without any analysis. The evidence in the present case being examined from the aforesaid stand-point, it cannot be said that the prosecution has failed to establish that what was recovered from the possession of the Petitioner was Ganja. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the contention 01 the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on this aspect and the same is accordingly rejected. 8. No other contention having been raised. I do not find any merits in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed