JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against the judgment dated 19th May, 1981 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No, 185/79 whereby the Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction of the petitioners under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act, has reduced the sentence to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- each. 2. On 23rd December, 1977 both the petitioners Laxmilal and Kishna were travelling from Udaipur to Jodhpur by bus No. RSQ 7063. The bus was stopped at about 6.00 P.M. at Salawas crossing and on search a locked tin was found below the seat on which the petitioners were sitting. The case of the prosecution is that the key of the lock was found in the possession of both the petitioners and on opening the lock of the tin two bags were found therein. One bag contained 7 kg 500 gram of opium and the other bag contained 4 kg 700 gm of opium, a Samples weighing 30 gm each were taken and sealed and the packet was sent for chemical examination. After conducting the investigation, both the petitioners were prosecuted for offences under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act. The Judicial Magistrate No. 1, First Class, Jodhpur convicted the petitioners of the said offences and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for two months. The petitioners filed appeal and in the said appeal the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur passed an order dated March 6, 1980 under Section 391, Cr. P.C. directing the Judicial Magistrate No. 1. Jodhpur to record additional evidence on the point whether seal-impressions of the seal on the packet in which the samples were sealed were sent separately to the State Forensic Science Laboratory or not. The matter was, therefore, remanded to the Judicial Magistrate for recording the said additional evidence. The petitioners filed a revision petition (S.B. Cr. Revision No. 73/80) against the said order of the Sessions Judge. The said revision was dismissed by this Court by its order dated 17th March, 1980. In accordance with the directions given by the Sessions Judge in his order dated 6th March, 1980, the Judicial Magistrate recorded statements of Dr. Gyanprakash Sharma PW-8, Amichand PW-9 and Pritam Chand PW-10 and Kishorilal PW-11. The said revision was dismissed by this Court by its order dated 17th March, 1980. In accordance with the directions given by the Sessions Judge in his order dated 6th March, 1980, the Judicial Magistrate recorded statements of Dr. Gyanprakash Sharma PW-8, Amichand PW-9 and Pritam Chand PW-10 and Kishorilal PW-11. Thereafter the matter was considered by the Sessions Judge in the light of the additional evidence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated May 19, 1981, upheld the conviction of the petitioners under Section 49 of the Opium Act but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months. The sentence of fine was, however, maintained. 3. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the Sessions Judge, the petitioners filed this revision. 4. I have heard Shri T.S. Champawat, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 5. The first contention that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that under order 6th March, 1980, as construed by this Court in the order dated 17th March, 1980 dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners, the additional evidence was allowed only as to whether specimen of the seals impressions were sent to the Chemical Examiner and additional evidence had not been allowed to be had as to how the sample was dealt with during the time it was seized and sealed till it reached the office of the Chemical Examiner. The learned counsel has urged that inspite of the aforesaid observations of this Court, additional evidence has been recorded with regard to the manner in which the sample was dealt with during the time when it was seized and sealed till it reached the office of the Chemical Examiner and the said evidence was in admissible and that the Sessions Judge in his order dated May 19, 1981 has taken into consideration the said additional evidence and on the basis of the same he has held that there was no tampering with the sample after the same was sealed till it reached the office of the Chemical Examiner. In my opinion, it is not necessary to deal with this question because the judgment of the Sessions Judge shows that apart from the report of the Chemical Examiner, the Sessions Judge has also held that the stuff which was recovered from the possession of the petitioners was opium is established from other evidence on record viz., the testimony of Manaklal, PW-3 and Devidayal, PW-7 who have expressly stated that the stuff which was seized from the possession of the petitioners was tasted and smelt by them and it was found to be opium and then Shakur Khan, PW-1, though declared hostile, has also deposed that the stuff which was found in the bags which were in the tin, on smelling and testing, was found to be opium. The Sessions Judge has referred to a decision of this Court in Annaram v. State 1977 WLN 99 , wherein it has been held that only in a case of a mixture an analysis is necessary in order to determine whether the article is opium or not and where the article is spontaneously coagulated juice of capsules of poppy and has not been submitted to manipulations, no chemical examination is necessary. In that case, this Court has further observed that the motbirs had stated that the article was opium and the Courts below also held that the article in possession was opium and there was no reason to doubt that the article so seized was opium. 6. The aforesaid decision of this Court in Annaram v. State is based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Baidhyanath v. State of Orissa 1967 SCD 165 wherein it has been observed as under : "...opium is a substance which once seen and smelt can never be forgotten because opium possesses a characteristic appearance and a very strong and characteristic scent. It is possible for people to identify opium without having to subject the product to a chemical analysis. It is only when opium is in a mixture so diluted that its essential characteristics are not easily visible or capable of being apprehended by the senses that a chemical analysis may be necessary. Of course, an analysis will always be necessary if there is a mixture and the quantity of morphine contained in the mixture has to be established for the purpose of definition." 7. In the present case, Shakur Khan. PW 1. Of course, an analysis will always be necessary if there is a mixture and the quantity of morphine contained in the mixture has to be established for the purpose of definition." 7. In the present case, Shakur Khan. PW 1. who was the Driver of the bus No. 7063., has stated in the examination-chief that the tin which was lying near the petitioners' feet contained opium in two bags. He has also stated that he had smelt the bags and found that they contained opium. He did not support the observation with regard to opium being recovered from the possession of the petitioners and was declared hostile. But in so far as the contents of the bags found in the tin are concerned he has deposed that the same was opium. 8. Manaklal, PW-3 was Inspector in Narcotics Department in Jodhpur. He was the person who had searched and had made the recovery. He has deposed that after opening the bags, the same were smelt and the contents were tasted and were found to be opium. There was no cross-examination of this witness on this part of his testimony. Similarly Devidayal. PW-7, Sub-Inspector, Narcotics Department, Jodhpur, has stated that he as well as the motbirs Panchas had smelt and tasted the contents of the bags and found that it was opium. He was not cross-examined on this part of his testimony. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that no reliance can be placed upon the circumstance that the stuff which was found in the bags in the tin was smelt and tasted and found to be opium because during the course of their examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C., this circumstance about the stuff being tasted and smelt and was found to be opium by the witnesses was not put to the petitioners. It is true that during the course of their examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. it was specifically not put to the petitioners that the stuff contained in the bags found in the tin was smelt and tasted and is found to be opium. But this fact was put to the petitioners during the course of their examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Then Shakur Khan, PW-1 has stated that the petitioners were having the tin in their possession and that the tin contained opium, which was weighed and found to be 12-13 kgms. But this fact was put to the petitioners during the course of their examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Then Shakur Khan, PW-1 has stated that the petitioners were having the tin in their possession and that the tin contained opium, which was weighed and found to be 12-13 kgms. It was also put by the petitioners that Manaklal, PW-3 has stated that under the feet of the petitioners there was a tin and on checking it was found to contain opium. Similarly, it was put to the petitioners that Devidayal, PW-7 has stated that between the feet of the petitioner a tin was lying and in that tin there were two rexin bags wherein illicit opium was found. This shows that during their examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. it was put to the petitioners that the stuff contained in the bags which were found in the tin lying under their seat was opium. The incriminating circumstance was the possession of opium and this circumstance was definitely put to the petitioners during the course of their examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The mere fact that no specific mention was made about the stuff having been smelt and tasted and was found to be opium is, in my view, not of much significance as to justify the exclusion of the circumstance that stuff which was contained in the bags found in the tin that was lying under the feet of the petitioners in the bus was opium. As mentioned earlier, during the course of examination of these witnesses the petitioner did not challenge their testimony during cross-examination that the stuff that was recovered from the bags found in the tin was opium and they did not also ask for chemical examination of the said stuff. In the circumstances, the Sessions Judge was, in my opinion, right in proceeding on the basis that the stuff that was recovered from the bags found in the tin was opium. As regards the possession of the petitioners of this opium which was found in the bags, the two Courts below have considered the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution and have held that the key of the lock of the tin which contained the opium was found with both the petitioners and, therefore, both the petitioners were in possession of the tin which contained the seized opium. 10. 10. In these circumstances, the offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act is clearly made out. The conviction of the petitioners for the said offences is maintained. 11. On the quantum of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that Kishna has remained in custody for 21 days and Laxmilal has remained in custody for 14 days. He submits that the incident relates to the year 1977 and that 12 years have elapsed and that in the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence may be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone. 12. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that interests of justice would be served if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them and it is reduced according Sentence of fine is, however, maintained. Two months' time is given for the payment of the fine. If the fine is not paid, the petitioners will further undergo imprisonment for two months as directed by the Courts below.Revision partly allowed. *******