JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Conviction u/s 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (shortly described as 'the Act') and sentence imposed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Berhampur having been upheld in appeal by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur, Petitioner has moved this application. 2. On the allegation that on 22-4-1982 the Petitioner was found in possession of 40 litres of illicit distilled liquor, prosecution was launched and the Petitioner faced trial. Alleging possession of and seizure from the Petitioner of the aforesaid illicit distilled liquor, prosecution report was submitted by the Sub-Inspector of the Excise Department. Three witnesses were examined including the informant officer (P.W. 3) and Asst. Sub-Inspector of Excise (P.W. 1) in whose presence alleged seizure was made. Another witness stated to have witnessed the seizure was examined as P.W.2. 3. Petitioner denied his involvement in the alleged offence. In Court the seizure witness made prevaricating statements and strangely his cross- examination was declined. 4. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Berhampur, trying the case held that the two witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1 and 3, though official witnesses, clearly established the involvement of the Petitioner in the alleged offence and it was established beyond any shadow of doubt that he was in possession of the illicit distilled liquor which was seized from him. Before him it was urged that there was no independent witness to the seizure and no chemical test and/or authentic test was conducted to find out as to whether the alleged seized liquid was illicit distilled liquor or not. The trial court relying on the evidence of P.W. 3, the Sub-Inspector of Excise held that the hydrometer test along with blue litmus paper test having been conducted by an experienced and specially trained Excise Officer was sufficient to establish that the material was liquor. He did not accept the prayer of the Petitioner to extend provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act to him. He found the Petitioner guilty of the offence as aforesaid and convicted and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for six months and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- with a direction that in case of failure to deposit the fine a further R. I. of one month was to be undergone. 5. He found the Petitioner guilty of the offence as aforesaid and convicted and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for six months and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- with a direction that in case of failure to deposit the fine a further R. I. of one month was to be undergone. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26-8-1983 in 2(C)CC No. 106 of 1982 (T. R. No. 218 of 1982), Petitioner carried an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam and the Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1985 (226/83 GDC) was heard and disposed of by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam. The grounds of challenge were reiterated before him. The appellate court upheld the findings of the trial court as regards acceptability of the test result. It also did not accept the contention of the accused that there was discrepancy in evidence and/or that evidence adduced was not sufficient to prove the involvement of the accused and/or the alleged seizure from him. It further held that merely because the seizure witness (P.W. 2) made prevaricating statements in the Court, it was not sufficient to throw out the prosecution case particularly when the two official witnesses clearly established the possession of and seizure from the accused. Primarily with these findings, it upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal. 6. Shri M.P. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has challenged the order of conviction and sentence, as upheld in appeal, mainly on the,following grounds; (i) The search was without jurisdiction as in view of mandatory requirement of Section 74 of the Act the Excise Officer (P.W. 3) should have recorded the ground of his belief relating to alleged search in the absence of a warrant to search. Reliance has been placed on several decisions for this purpose, which I shall deal with subsequently. (ii) The admitted position being that the seized liquid was not sent for chemical examination there was no basis for coming to the conclusion that the liquid seized was illicit distilled liquor and therefore, the prosecution was bad. (iii) The only independent witness (P.W. 2) having clearly stated that he had not seen any seizure and there being no cross- examination by the prosecution, the benefit of doubt should have been given to the Petitioner. (iii) The only independent witness (P.W. 2) having clearly stated that he had not seen any seizure and there being no cross- examination by the prosecution, the benefit of doubt should have been given to the Petitioner. (iv) In a case of this nature where substantive sentence of imprisonment is compulsory after conviction, corroboration was necessary to prove possession of the alleged contraband material with the Petitioner, particularly when the Petitioner did not admit that he was found in possession of the said material. For this purpose reliance has also been placed on several decisions of this Court, which I shall deal with subsequently.. (v) The sentence imposed is high and disproportionate and this being the first alleged offence committed by the Petitioner, a liberal view should be taken since the Petitioner is a poor man belonging to a remote village in Ganjam district and is a labourer by occupation. 7. On the other hand. Shri B. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that appropriate tests have been conducted by an experienced and specially trained officer and the hydrometer test as well as blue litmus paper test was conducted by P.W. 3 and in view of settled position of law that these two tests conducted by an experienced and specially trained officer are sufficient for the purpose of proving t hat the liquid seized was liquor, the Contentions on behalf of the Petitioner to the contrary do not carry any weight. He also submitted that merely because P.W. 2 did not state in Court that the seizure was made in his presence the very fact that he signed the seizure list clearly proved that he was not telling the truth in the Court and in any event p. ws 1 and 3, the two official witnesses having clearly established the commission of the offence by the accused-Petitioner the conviction was in order. So far as the contention relating to non-compliance of Section 74 is concerned, it was submitted that the same was never raised by the Petitioner at any stage during trial or before the appellate Court and even no suggestion was made to the official witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 3 about the non-compliance of the said provision. Therefore, it was submitted, toe plea should not be permitted to be raised before this Court for the first time. 1 and 3 about the non-compliance of the said provision. Therefore, it was submitted, toe plea should not be permitted to be raised before this Court for the first time. As regards the sentence is concerned, submission was made that in view of the alarming rise of trading in illicit distilled liquor causing damage to national health, the Petitioner deserved no leniency. The contentions raised by the parties require careful consideration. 8. So far as the contention relating to non-compliance of Section 74 is concerned, I find that such a contention was not raised before the Courts below, Though question of compliance of a statutory requirement is a question of law it is not an absolute question of law and at the best is a mixed question of law and fact. Had challenge been made to the non-compliance of this provision and/or even a suggestion made to the witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 3, it could have been adjudicated as to whether there was really any such contravention as alleged. P. w. 3 has stated in Court that he conducted the search after observing all formalities. There was no cross-examination on this aspect that having not been done, I do not think it proper to permit raising of a question for the first time in this Court. The contention in this regard is, therefore, negatived and I do not propose to refer to the decisions cited. 9. So far as the question of corroboration by an independent witness is concerned, reliance has been placed on several decisions of this Court reported in Sri Kodanda Dehuri v. State of Orissa (1988) I O.C.R. 287, Bhajana Sahu v. State of Orissa (1989) II O.C.R. 215, and the unreported decisions in Kangali Sahoo v. State Crl. Revision No. 329 of 1979, decided on 5-2-1981 and Tumbanath Behere v. State Crl. Revision 129 of 1981, decided on 25-5-1982 referred to in the case of Bhajana Sahu8 (supra). In the case of Kodanda Dehuri's easel (supra), it was held as follows: ... 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.... In my view the ratio can be said to be applicable to the facts of that particular case. Insistence on corroboration is a requirement of prudence and caution and cannot be an absolute requirement. In my view the ratio can be said to be applicable to the facts of that particular case. Insistence on corroboration is a requirement of prudence and caution and cannot be an absolute requirement. There may be several cases where there may not be any witness excepting the official witnesses. Crimes are not always committed in broad day light or in thickly populated areas. A dark deed is mostly done 'in the dark, except by daring criminals who show their bravado before a crowd. In the present case, there was a witness available who unfortunately stated in Court that he does not know anything about the alleged seizure or the occurrence. He did not dispute his signature in the seizure list, but stated as follows: I signed at the instance of Excise Police. Ext. 1/2 is my signature. I put my signature about one year back. The prosecution did not choose to examine him any further and declined cross-examination. It is unfortunate that when the fate of the case almost depended on the testimony of this witness, in view of the decisions of this Court insisting on corroboration, such a callous and negligent approach has been made. In any event the fact remains that except the evidence of the official witnesses there is no material to link the Petitioner with the alleged crime. I shall proceed to examine as to whether their evidence was sufficient for a conviction. 10. It has not been suggested to the official witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 3 that they had any animosity towards the Petitioner and/or that they were trying to falsely implicate the Petitioner. The admitted position is that the Petitioner is a labourer by occupation and there is no reason as to why the Excise Officials would falsely implicate him in a case. In my view, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3. Two Courts have, concurrently found on' appreciation of fact that the evidence of these two witnesses was sufficient to establish the guilt of the Petitioner. Since there is no perversity in the conclusions reached by them and since there is no material procedural irregularity committed by them, there is no scope for any interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction. Two Courts have, concurrently found on' appreciation of fact that the evidence of these two witnesses was sufficient to establish the guilt of the Petitioner. Since there is no perversity in the conclusions reached by them and since there is no material procedural irregularity committed by them, there is no scope for any interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction. As stated above, corroboration can only be made if there is scope for it and insistence for it, which may be impossible in certain circumstances would be against the spirit and requirement of law. 11. Even in the case of Tumbanath Behera's case Crl. Revision 129 of 1981 (supra) the Court observed that non-Examination of two constables said to be present at the place of occurrence was a suspicious feature. Thus, it cannot be laid down as a general principle that where only official witnesses are present their evidence has to be thrown out and disbelieved 'and no conviction can be made on their evidence. 12. Coming to the contention raised regarding the unsatisfactory tests conducted, it is a settled position in law that if hydrometer and blue litmus paper tests are conducted by a specially trained and experienced officer, the results are acceptable and are sufficient for the purpose of a trial. See Dhobei v. State 26 (1960) C.L.T. 620 and judgment dated 16-2-1983 in Ram Krushna Sahu v. State 55 (1983) C.L.T. 48. The same view was reiterated by this Court in the case of Madhu Sundhi Vs. State of Orissa, in the instant case both the tests have been conducted by P.W. 3, the Sub-Inspector, who has deposed that he is specially trained, with 15 years experience in the line and has conducted the tests in more than 5000 cases. In that view of the matter, the contention relating to inappropriate tests carries no force. The decision in the case of Khetramohan Nayak Vs. State of Orissa was rendered in a case where only hydrometer test was conducted and the Court held that only the said test was not sufficient. The decision is, therefore, of no assistance to the Petitioner. Rather it lays down that blue Litmus paper test is a conclusive test. 13. The decision in the case of Khetramohan Nayak Vs. State of Orissa was rendered in a case where only hydrometer test was conducted and the Court held that only the said test was not sufficient. The decision is, therefore, of no assistance to the Petitioner. Rather it lays down that blue Litmus paper test is a conclusive test. 13. Coming to the question of sentence, I appreciate the concern expressed by Shri Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel about the alarming rise of trading in illicit distilled liquor and other contraband articles which has resulted in numerous deaths also. No leniency is really warranted to such cases. But in the present case, I find that the Petitioner is a young man in his early twenties and is a labourer by occupation. The quantum of liquor seized was 40 litres which was being carried in two plastic jars hung from a bamboo pole. The law enforcing agencies should make attempts to uproot the empires of illicit liquor trade being built by unscrupulous big shots dealing in contra bands so that the evil can be eliminated at the root level and small fry like the Petitioner who are mere carriers do not become victims. Punishment should be awarded in such cases as a deterrent measure, which at the same time should be reformative and corrective in character. The Petitioner may turn a new leaf in life. Taking these facts into consideration, in my view, ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone and the quantum of fine is raised to Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand). If the fine is not paid, the default sentence shall be R. I, for three months. This case will not be considered as a precedence, as the modification in sentence is being made keeping in view the peculiar circumstances and background of the case. 14. In the result, subject to the modification in the sentence as aforesaid, the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed