JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balasore, convicting the Petitioner u/s 47 (f) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act (herein reffered to as the 'Act') and affirming the sentence imposed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak. 2. Short facts of the case are as follows: On 18-5-1980 p.w. 4a Sub-Inspector of Excise, searched the house of Bad of the Petitioner in village Mirjapur in the presence of an Excise Constable (p.w. 2) and two independent witnesses (p. ws, land 3) and found 5.500 litres of I. D. liquor kept in a Dakchi in the house and two pots each containing 20 K. Gs. of fermented mahua wash with distillation by seizure list (Ext. Ill) a nd submitted a prosecution report against the Petitioner for having committed an offence u/s 47 (a) of the Act. 3. The Petitioner was placed on trial before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak, where he pleaded that his house and Bari were not searched and the contraband articles were not seized by the Excise Officer. 4. The learned Magistrate, however, believed the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4, because the Independent witnesses (P.Ws. 1 and 3) turned hostile to the prosecution and recorded the findings that the Petitioner's house and Bad were searched by p.w. 4 and I.D. liquor mahua wash and distillation apparatus were seized from the house and Bari of which the Petitioner was in exclusive possession and so he convicted him for the offence u/s 47 (a) of the Act and passed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorious imprisonment for two months more. The Petitioner appealed before the learned Sessions Judge who took a different view w far as the identity of the seized I. O. liquor was concerned for, he held: ...If this circumstances, I would agree with the point made in the written argument that the prosecution evidence left scope for reasonable doubt as to whether the contents in the sample bottle (M. O.I) was liquor. He however, a greed with the learned Court below that 40 K. Gs. of mahua wash kept in two pots and distillation apparatus were seized from the Bari behind the house in possession of the Petitioner. He however, a greed with the learned Court below that 40 K. Gs. of mahua wash kept in two pots and distillation apparatus were seized from the Bari behind the house in possession of the Petitioner. Accordingly he altered the conviction from Clause (a) to (f) of Section 47, but maintained the sentence. The revision came up for hearing' before a learned single Judge of this Court who doubted the correctness of the decision cited at the Bar and reported in Paramananda Jena v. State 64 (1987) C.L.T. l44, and referred the case to a larger Bench and that is how the case has come up before us. 5. The facts of the case of Paramananda Jena v. State (supra) was that 180 litres of liquor were seized from a car bearing registration No. WBC2861 and the Petitioner being the driver and sole occupant of the car was prosecuted for an offence u/s 47 (a) of the Act. One of the contentions raised in the case was that even if the prosecution case was accepted in toto, yet no offence was made out because, "...Section 47, Bihar Orissa Excise Act itself is not an offence but only provides that if anyone indulges in the various acts enumerated in sub-clauses (a) to (g) thereof in contravention of the provisions of the Act or of, any rule notification order licences permit or pass made issued given or granted as the case may be under the Act shall be convicted as provided for under that section. It is as such necessary before any conviction under his section can be maintained to prove that the person proceeded against has in fact been guilty of any of such acts as prohibit u/s 47. It is as such necessary before any conviction under his section can be maintained to prove that the person proceeded against has in fact been guilty of any of such acts as prohibit u/s 47. (quoted from para 5 of the judgment) In deciding the question the learned Judge made reference to Sections 5, 8, 12 and 19 of the Act and held as follows: Nothing has been proved in the case to show as to what, provision of law the Petitioner has violated and under which provision, of the law possession of transporting 180 lites of country liquor is prohibited," xx xx xx Nothing has been proved in this case to make either the possession or transportation of the liquor as alleged to be a contravention of the provisions of the Act, Rule or any notification made thereunder or of any licence permit or pass and hence the objection raised by Mr. Mukherjee is was taken." ( quoted from para 6 of the judgment ) The learned referring Judge relied upon sections; 2. (12-3) 18 (1); 19 (1), 47 (a); 48 and notification No. 2768-Ex. dated, the 14th, August, 1965 published in the Orissa Gazette Extraordinary No. 1793 dated the 15th November. 1965 and observed that if a person was found to be in possession of 180 litres of country liquor,and yet he failed to account satisfactorily for it he was liable to be punished u/s 47 (a). of the Act. 6: As has been indicted above in the case before us conviction of the Petitioner under clause. (a) was altered to Clause (f) of Section 47 of the Act Against the above finding the State has not come up in revision. Therefore, we are not called upon to decide as to whether the Petitioner was guilty for the offence u/s 47 (a). We have to decide if he was guilty for the offence u/s 47 (1) of the Act. Therefore, we are not called upon to decide as to whether the Petitioner was guilty for the offence u/s 47 (a). We have to decide if he was guilty for the offence u/s 47 (1) of the Act. Never the less the observations made by the learned Judge in the case of Paramananda and v. State (supra) is likely to give rise to legal confusion because of their binding effect on subordinate Courts which may interpret that there is no provision in the Act, Rule, Order or notification making possession of country liquor an offence punishable under the Act and further the people in general will carry the impression that possession of any quantity of country liquor is not an offence punishable under any law in force.. It is therefore, necessary for us to examine if there are adequate provisions in law making possession of liquor in excess of the permissible quantity of punishable offence. . 7. For the purpose of discussion it would be convenient to quote from the Act: 2 (12-a). 'intoxicant' means any liquor or intoxicating drug and includes mohua flower. xx xx (14) 'liquor' includes all liquids consisting of or containing alcohol, such as spirits of wine spirit wine fermented tari, pachwai and beer, and also unfermented tari and also any other substance which the State Government may by notification declare to be liquor for the purposes of this Act; It will appear from the above definitions that liquor is an intoxicant, "18 (1). No person shall have in his possession any intoxicant which has not been obtained from a licensed vendor of the same." Sub-section (2) of Section 18 provides exceptions as to the circumstances under which a person can possess any intoxicant. Unless a person comes within and of these exceptions, he cannot possess liquor. 19 (1). No person not being licensed to manufacture cultivate, collect or sell any intoxicant shall have in his possession any quantity of any intoxicant in excess of such quantity as the Board has u/s 5 declared to be the limit of a retain sale except under a permit granted by the Collector In that behalf." According to this provision the Board of Revenue was authorised u/s 5 of the Act to declare limit of retain sale. 8. 8. The relevant portion of notification No. 2768-Ex., dated the 14th August 1965 issued by the Board of Revenue, Orissa and published in the Orissa Gazette Extraordinary No. 1703, dated the 15th November 1965, is quoted below for convenience: In exercise of the powers conferred by the provisions specified below of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act 1915 (Bihar and Orissa Act 2 of 1915) (hereinafter called the Act) and of the powers delegated by the State Government under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act and in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject including those published in Board (Revenue Commissioner. Orissa's) notification No. 3295-Ex. dated the 21st. June 1937, the Board of Revenue, Orissa hereby declares, under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act, that the quantities specified in column (3) of the table below shall with effect from the lst April 1966, be the limit of retail sale in respect of intoxicants mentioned in column (2) and of localities and class of purchasers specified in column (1) namely: (1) (2) (3) Locality Name of intoxicant Limit of retain sale. x x (B) Country Liquor (i) Throughout Distillery liquor Nil the State. (ii) The Outstill Out-still liquor 3.00 litres areas of the State. xx xx xx Section 48 deals with presumption as to offence where possession is not satisfactorily accounted for and is reproduced below: 48. Presumption as to offence where, possession is not satisfactorily accounted for. In prosecution u/s 47 it may be presumed unless and until the contrary is proved that the accused person has committed an offence punishable under that section in respect of: (a) any intoxicant or (b) any still utensil implement or apparatus whatsoever for the manufacture of any intoxicant other than tari or (c) any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of an intoxicant or from which an intoxicant, has been manufactured for the possession of which be fails to account satisfactorily. If the provisions of the aforesaid sections are read with the notification of the Board of Revenue it will be clear that possession of liquor which is intoxicant by a person is prohibited except when it is obtained from a licensed vendor. If the provisions of the aforesaid sections are read with the notification of the Board of Revenue it will be clear that possession of liquor which is intoxicant by a person is prohibited except when it is obtained from a licensed vendor. Without having a licence to manufacture collect or sell liquor, a person cannot, possess liquor in excess of such quantity as has been declared by the Board of Revenue "in the notification dated 14th August 1965. In other words, a person cannot sell distillery liquor in the State without having a licence. With regard to out-still liquor in the out-still areas of the State he can sell up to 3.00 litres having a licence. As a consequence no person can possess any quantity of distillery liquor and a person can at best retain 3.00 litres of out still liquor in out-still areas of the State only after purchase from a licences. If a person is found possessing more than the permissible quantity of liquor it will be presumed that such possession is illegal as well as penal, unless he established satisfactorily, that such possession is authorised according to law. In the case of Paramananda Jena v. State (supra), no reference to the definitions of "intoxicant" and "liquor" in Section 2 (12-a) and (14), as well as Section 18, of the Act was made, Although reference to Section 19 was made, the notification of the Board of Revenue referred to above was not noticed. The presumption which a court would draw u/s 48 of the Act was also not considered. Therefore, the observations made in para 6 of the judgment and quoted in para 5 above did bot represent the law correctly. Our conclusion therefore, is that if a person is found in possession of out still liquor which is intoxicant in the out-still areas of the State in excess of the permissible quantity and does not satisfactorily' explain such possession, it shall, be presumed, that he has contravened Section 47 (a) of the Act and thereby he commits an offence and is liable for the prescribed penalty. 9. There is another observation in para 8 of the case of Paramananda Jena v. State (supra) which reads as follows: While it has not been proved that transporting or exporting etc. 9. There is another observation in para 8 of the case of Paramananda Jena v. State (supra) which reads as follows: While it has not been proved that transporting or exporting etc. of 180 litres of country liquor is an offence the 'very' seizure of 180 litres has not also been proved. We are not concerned with proof of seizure. We take notice of the first part which conveys that transporting or exporting of country liquor must be proved to be an offence. It is necessary to deal with this matter to remove some misconceptions of law. "Import" and "export" have been defined in Sub-section (10) and (12) of Section 2 of the Act as under: (10). "export" means to take out of the State otherwise than across a customs frontier as defined by the Central Government .xxx xxx (12). "Import" (except in the phrase "import into India") means to bring into the State otherwise than across a customs frontier as defined by the Central Government. Section 9 and 10 imposed restriction on import and export of intoxicant. They are quoted below: '9. Restriction on import: (1) No intoxicant shall be imported unless (a) the State Government has given permission either general or special, for its import; (b) such conditions (if any) as the State Government may impose have been satisfied; and (c) the duty (if any) payable under Chapter V. has been paid or a bond has been executed for the payment thereof. xx xx xx " 10. Restriction on export or transport. No intoxicant shall be exported or transported unless- (a) the duty (if any) payable under Chapter V has been paid, or a bond has been executed for the payment thereof: xx xx xx So far as import of intoxicant is concerned, it cannot be done without either general or special permission of the State Government and only on satisfaction of conditions imposed by it and duty if any payable has been paid or a: bond has been executed for payment thereof, Similarly without payment of duty payable, if any, or execution of a bond for payment thereof, any intoxicant cannot be exported or transported. Thus, there is statutory restriction for import, export and transport of intoxicant. Section 11 prohibits import, export or transport of intoxicant and reads thus: 11. Power to prohibit import export or transport. Thus, there is statutory restriction for import, export and transport of intoxicant. Section 11 prohibits import, export or transport of intoxicant and reads thus: 11. Power to prohibit import export or transport. The State Government may by notification; (a) Prohibit the import or export of any intoxicant into or from the State or any part there of or (b) prohibit the transport ot any intoxicant. Section 12 (1), which deals with passes for import export or transport is also relevant and is quoted below: 12. Passes for import export or transport: (1) No intoxicant exceeding such quantity as the State Government may prescribe any notification, either generally or for any specified local area shall be imported exported or transported, except under a pass; The State Government notification referred to in Section 12 (1) bears No, 49749-1II-Ex-91/65-R, dated the 24th Jun.1965 published in Orissa Gazette Extraordinary No. 1176, dated the 7th August 1965 (at page 57 of the Orissa Excise Manual, V. 01. I). Part VII thereof is quoted' below !or proper appreciation: Part VII) .. Prescribe, under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act that (1) no intoxicant exceeding the limit, of a retail sale as specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 5 shall be imported or transported except under a pass:' This part is to be read with the Board, of Revenue. Orissa's notification No. 2768-Ex., dated the 14th August, 1965, the relevant portion of which has been quoted in paragraph 8 above. When read conjointly, it would mean that liquor being an intoxicant cannot be imported or transported exceeding the prescribed limit without a pass. Only for the limit of 3.00 litres of out-still liquor when purchased from a licensed vendor, no pass will be necessary. So, the observation quoted above does not represent the law correctly. Transportation of a huge quantity of country liquor without a pass constituted a~ offence u/s 47 (a) of the Act. 10. Now coming to the case before us we find that the Petitioner was convicted for possession of distillation apparatus used for the purpose of manufacturing liquor u/s 47 (f) of the Act. The learned courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the Petitioner was in exclusive possession of the said apparatus along with a huge quantity of fermented mohua wash. The learned courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the Petitioner was in exclusive possession of the said apparatus along with a huge quantity of fermented mohua wash. In criminal revision, ordinarily there is no scope for interference unless the finding of facts is based on no evidence or is perverse. In this case, the finding of facts is based on evidence the appreciation of which was such as an ordinary man could reasonably arrive. Therefore, we accept the finding of fact and hold that the Petitioner was in exclusive possession of distillation apparatus along with fermented mohua wash for the purpose of manufacturing Country liquor which is an intoxicant. Section 13 (f) of the Act specifically prohibits possession of any materials, utensils, implements or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicant except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a licence granted' in that behalf by the Collector. Exclusive possession of the distillation apparatus with fermented mohua wash found with the Petitioner conclusively goes to show that the purpose was for manufacturing country liquor. Manifestly, the Petitioner 'bad no authority or licence for the same. Therefore, against the prohibition created by Section 13 (f) of the Act, he was found in possession of the above and thereby he invited penal action u/s 47 (f) of the Act. The conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, cannot be disturbed. The offence being anti-social, the punishment imposed is the minimum prescribed in law and so interference is uncalled for. 11. The revision is accordingly dismissed. A.K. Padhi, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed