JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, upholding his conviction and sentence u/s 47(a) of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 1.12.1979 P.W.3, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise found the Petitioner in possession of 7 litres of I.D. liquor kept in two jarkins. He seized the same in the presence two independent witnesses (P.Ws. 1 and 2) and prepared a seizure list (Ext.1/2). He produced the Petitioner, as well as the seizure list (Ext.1/2) before P.W.4, Sub-Inspector of Excise who took up investigation and after completion thereat submitted the Prosecution Report. 3. The Petitioner denied possession of the liquor. 4. Learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate believed the evidence or P.Ws. 3 and 4 and after recording conviction u/s 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, sentenced the Petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. The learned Sessions Judge upheld the aforesaid order. 5. Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, challenged the finding of the learned Courts below with regard to possession of the I.D. liquor by the Petitioner. He urged that the independent witnesses (P.Ws. 1 and 2) did not support the prosecution case and the Sub-Inspector of Excise (P.W.4) was not present at the time of seizure, Therefore, on the basis or the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.3 who was, himself an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise, conviction and substantive sentence should not have been recorded. The contention has force. 6. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were independent witnesses said to have been present at the time of seizure. They did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. The prosecution, therefore, could not take advantage, I of their evidence to prove possession of 7 litres of I.D. liquor with the Petitioner. Although P.W.4, the Sub-Inspector of Excise was an official witness, he was himself not present when the seizure took place. I am, therefore, left with the uncorroborated version of P.W.3, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise. In a case of this nature, where substantive sentence of imprisonment is compulsory after conviction, some amount of corroboration is necessary to prove possession of the intoxicant with the Petitioner. This is completely lacking in this case. I am, therefore, left with the uncorroborated version of P.W.3, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise. In a case of this nature, where substantive sentence of imprisonment is compulsory after conviction, some amount of corroboration is necessary to prove possession of the intoxicant with the Petitioner. This is completely lacking in this case. The learned Courts below did not take into consideration this significant feature of absence of corroborative evidence of possession of the I.D. liquor with the Petitioner. The Petitioner himself did not admit that he was found in possession of the intoxicant. In those circumstances and in disagreement with the learned Courts below, I held that the prosecution failed to prove that the Petitioner was found in possession of 7 litres of the I.D. liquor said to have been seized from him. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence is not in accordance with law and cannot be sustained. 7. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed and the impugned orders of conviction and sentence are set aside. The Petitioner is acquitted of the charge u/s 47(a) of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act and is set at liberty. Bail bond is cancelled. Fine if realised should be refunded. Final Result : Allowed