JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is an appeal u/s 378 Code of Criminal Procedure against acquittal of the Respondent who was prosecute a for an offence u/s 47(b) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. 1915 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. Accusation against the Respondent is that he cultivated 4500 numbers of hemp plants in his bari land which grew upto a height of 3'4' on 10-9-1979. when Sub-Inspector of Excise (P.W. 4) along with the staff went to the village, searched the bari of the Respondent in village Majhagaon and finding the said plants uprooted and seized the same. 3. Respondent in his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure denied search and seizure of any hemp plant from his bari and denied to have cultivated any hemp plant. His plea was one of denial. 4. The prosecution examined 4 witnesses and exhibited the seizure list. It produced a sample of hemp plant as M. O. I from out of the plants seized since by earlier order of the Court other hemp plants were destroyed on account of their decomposing stage. 5. Trial Court acquitted the Respondent on the finding that p. ws. 1 and 2 are outsiders and chance witnesses and as no villager has been examined by the 'prosecution. It held that due to absence of such evidence, it could not come to the conclusion as to what was actually the occurrence and even though there might be an occurrence, who was in cultivating possession of alleged land. Great weight was given by the trial court to the discrepancy with regard to the time of seizure as stated by the witnesses for the prosecution. 6. Being an appeal against acquittal, normally the appellate court is not to interfere with the finding of the fact of the learned Judge acquitting the accused. Where however, material facts, circumstances and law were not taken into consideration while rendering the finding of or the finding is unreasonable, appellate court can reassess the evidence and come to its own conclusion. 7. In this background it is to be examined: (a) Whether there was any seizure on 10-9-1979 as alleged by the prosecution. (b) If there was seizure, whether the plants seized were hemp plants, and (c) whether the hemp plants seized were cultivated by the Respondent. 8. 7. In this background it is to be examined: (a) Whether there was any seizure on 10-9-1979 as alleged by the prosecution. (b) If there was seizure, whether the plants seized were hemp plants, and (c) whether the hemp plants seized were cultivated by the Respondent. 8. Sub-Inspector of Excise (P.W. 4) stated that he went to village on 10-9-1979. guarded the house and bari of the Respondent whom he knew and thereafter searched his backyard to find 4500 hemp plants which were to a height of 3'4". He described the bari to be well fenced having entrance from the side of the house and having a main entrance from the front of the house. Plants were measured in presence of the accused and witnesses and were then uprooted and bounded. He prepared the seizure list (Ext. 1). Suggestion by the defence that he had not seized any Ganja plant from the possession of the Respondent and that the witnesses were absent at the time of seizure was emphatically denied by him. P.W. 3. a member of the staff of P.W. 4 corroborated P.W. 4. in all material aspects. P. ws.l and 2 are no doubt outsiders not having residence in the village. P.W. 1 stated that he came to the village to purchase ghee. P.W. 2 stated that he came to the village to purchase goat. In villages, people go to other villages for such purchases. These statements have not been assailed specifically in the cross-examination. Their statements are natural and in usual course they being in the' village cannot be described as chance witnesses. They corroborated P.W. 4 in respect of description of the bari, search and seizure. D.W. 1 who is a witness to the seizure has denied the same. He stated that the Respondent is his caste man. He is also an accused in another such case: D.W. 2 is also an accused who contradicted D.W. 1 to the extent that D.W. 1 has land in the outskirts of the village and is a recorded', tenant in' respect of some landed property whereas D.W. 1 stated that the Respondent is a landless and homeless person. 9. It is to be remembered that on the same day from the same village, 17 cases of cultivation of hemp plants were detected. 9. It is to be remembered that on the same day from the same village, 17 cases of cultivation of hemp plants were detected. In such circumstances non-examination of any villager who were witnesses to the seizure cannot be given any weight. 10. Trial Court disbelieved the seizure On account of discrepancy with regard to the time there of in respect of various cases detected by, P.W. 4. When 17 cases were detected on the same day, trial court ought to have given due weight to the fact that there is bound to be some discrepancy with regard to time of seizure. Time of seizure is not such a circumstance in the present case that the entire prosecution with regard to seizure would by disbelieved. In such circumstances, the finding of the trial Court is unreasonable and am satisfied that 4500 plants as alleged were seized. 11. Next question for consideration is whether the plants seized were hemp plants. P.W. 4 is the Sub-Inspector of Excise. When be was questioned as to why the plants were not sent to expert for examination, be stated that he is an expert and accordingly, be did not find any reason to send the same to another expert. To cross-examination by the defence to test his expertised knowledge, he stated that the hemp plants do not resemble to any other plant, they have got a type of leaf and odour which no other plant has, and from the nature of the plant and its odour and character, one can state a plant to be hemp plant if he is an expert. There is no reason to disbelieve P.W. 4 in this regard. In the circumstances. I am satisfied that the plants seized are hemp plants. 12. The most important question is whether the Respondent clavated the hemp plant. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 claim to have known the accused earlier. All the witnesses for the prosecution give a clear description of the bari. They stated that the same was fenced from all sides having entrance from the back side of the house of the accused and P.W. 4 has stated that from the front there is main en trance. From this when there is an entrance from the house ot the accused to the had it can safely be inferred that the bari is of the accused-Respondent. From this when there is an entrance from the house ot the accused to the had it can safely be inferred that the bari is of the accused-Respondent. When the bari is of the Respondent-accused and 4500 hemp plants were found to be grown in that bari, possession ot the accused Respondent is to be inferred. Thus there is no doubt that accused was in possession of 4500 hemp plants grown in his bari which were uprooted and seized when they were of a height 3'4', 13. There is no evidence in this case that the Respondent cultivated these hemp plants in his bari. However, Section 48 of the Act provides for a presumption against the accused, when his possession is proved. No explanation has been given by the Respondent with regard to such possession. Rather he has denied to have cultivated the hemp plants. Accordingly, a presumption can be drawn u/s 48 of the Act that the accused is guilty of an offence u/s 47(b) of the Act. Thus, I am satisfied that the accused is guilty of the offence for which he has been prosecuted. 14. Finding the accused guilty, the question of sentence becomes material. As regards an offence u/s 47(b) of the Act, the Section provides that a minimum sentence of 6 months to a maximum of two years would be imposed on the accused unless the Court finds reasons for not imposing lesser than the minimum. Time of the offence and period that lapsed are the circumstances to be taken into consolidation while imposing sentence giving weight to the nature of the offence committed, unless it is found that the accused is responsible for the delay in conclusion of the trial and imposing sentence. In this case it cannot be said that the accused is responsible for the delay. In fact, he was acquitted and in appeal only I am finding him guilty. In such circumstance, about ten years after a sentence lesser than the minimum might have been justified. In the present case, however, I find that 4500 hemp plants were detected to be grown in the bari of the accused Respondent. It is a deliberate act at the accused to frustrate the prohibition under the Act. Not only the accused, 17 others in the village had also alleged to have violated the law. In the present case, however, I find that 4500 hemp plants were detected to be grown in the bari of the accused Respondent. It is a deliberate act at the accused to frustrate the prohibition under the Act. Not only the accused, 17 others in the village had also alleged to have violated the law. In society where violation of law is made in a community, to protect the society a rigid view is to be taken, so that la w is observed and on account of lack of direction either on account of negligence or otherwise of the persons entrusted with such duty the accused does not remain tree. Therefore, keeping the lapse of the period as well as the gravity of the offence, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case where any sentence lesser than minimum should be imposed. Accordingly while convicting the Respondent u/s 47(b) of the Act, I sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Unless the accused surrenders to custody to serve the sentence within one month from to-day, steps shall be taken to apprehend him for serving the sentence. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 16. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed