JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 13th of January, 1981 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balotra, by which the judgment dated 11th of October, 1977 passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Barmer convicting and sentencing the applicant under section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, 1969 was uphold. By that judgment, the learned Magistrate had held the petitioner guilty for the offence under section 4(2) of the Act and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of 200/- in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case leading to the conviction of the petitioner is that on 18-2-1977 Dhanraj Joshi, SHO, Gude Malani while on patrol sent to the field of Hanwant Singh at about 7 p.m. and found the petitioner stilling illicit liquor. He took in possession the two battles of liquor and prepared the seizure memo Exhibit P-2. The sample of the liquor so seized was found to be of liquor having 61.69 Under Proof Ethyl Alcohol. Charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate charge sheeted him for the aforesaid offence and on the accused denying the charge trial proceeded. Five witnesses were examined from the prosecution side. Accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the charge and examined one defence witness. The learned Judge held the prosecution case proved and passed the conviction and sentence as stated earlier. The appeal in filed grievance of the aforesaid judgment failed. Hence this revision petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the findings of the trial Court and the Appellate Court on the ground that the prosecution case rests only on the testimony of the SHO and the police constables. It has been strenuously contended that except the statement of Kheta Ram there is no material to point out as to where and in what manner the alleged implicating articles remained till handed over to Kheta Ram, Constable on 20-4-77 to be taken to Jaipur for chemical examination. 4. Dhanraj P.W. 5 is the SHO, who has arranged raid at the field of Hanwant Singh, where according to the prosecution the accused petitioner was found with two bottles of illicit liquor manufactured by him from a Still. It is pertinent to note that no implement of manufacturing the illicit liquor has been seized or produced in the Court. 4. Dhanraj P.W. 5 is the SHO, who has arranged raid at the field of Hanwant Singh, where according to the prosecution the accused petitioner was found with two bottles of illicit liquor manufactured by him from a Still. It is pertinent to note that no implement of manufacturing the illicit liquor has been seized or produced in the Court. It is also important to consider that out of the three mothers, two, namely Sukharam and Kishan Singh, who have not supported the seizure memo prepared by the police constable accompanied, have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Sukharam is said to have been taken from bus stand Guda to t he site. It has come from the statement of Kishan Singh that there were a number of Dhanies near the place occurrence but none of the inhabitants thereof has been taken as motbir. 5. The reason for taking Sukharam as mother appears to be as admitted by him in cross examination that he was also involved in an excise matter. It might have been expected of him to support the prosecution case but he has not fulfilled the expectation of the prosecution. Apart from the fact that independent witness not being there to support the prosecution case the significant lacuna in the prosecution case is that it has not been proved as to where the sealed articles remained after their seizure till they were entrusted to Kheta Ram P.W. 4 for being taken from S P. Office. Barmer to the Office of the Chemical Examiner, Jaipur. 6. I carefully examined the statements of Dhanraj, Kishan Singh and Chetan Giri but could not find any material to suggest as to where the articles were placed after seizure. Not a single question was put to the independent witness Sukharam as to who had appended signature on the paper pasted on the articles seized and sealed. 6. I carefully examined the statements of Dhanraj, Kishan Singh and Chetan Giri but could not find any material to suggest as to where the articles were placed after seizure. Not a single question was put to the independent witness Sukharam as to who had appended signature on the paper pasted on the articles seized and sealed. In the absence of the linking evidence from the time of seizure i.e. 18-2-77 up to 24-2-77 as to where and in what condition the articles remained coupled with the infirmity of the prosecution case not being supported by independent witness, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that prosecution has failed to establish that there being no implicating article seized from the accused and even if so whether there being no evidence that it was properly sealed and kept in sealed condition so as to reach the Chemical Examiner II sealed condition, it cannot be believed that the article seized was illicit liquor so as to warrant conviction under section 4(2) of the Act, has ample force. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor could not point out any material to controvert these contentions. In such circumstances, the conviction of the petitioner under section 4(2) of the Act is liable to be set aside. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence of Mishra are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged.Revision allowed. *******