JUDGMENT : J.M. Mahapatra, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-5-1986 of the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Berhampur, maintaining the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner for an offence u/s 47(a) of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that on 23-3-1985 at about 5.50 p. m. the Section 1 of Excise, P.W. 1, found the Petitioner selling I.D liquor near the village Chandipadar by the side of the road adjoining the village. He searched the Petitioner in presence of P.W. 2 and found from his possession a plastic jar containing five litres of I.D. liquor kept in a plastic bag along with a glass tumbler emitting smell of liquor. He conducted the litmus paper test and Hydrometer test over the liquid of the jar and found the liquid to be I.D. liquor. He, therefore, seized the said jar along with the bag and glass tumbler and prepared a seizure list, under Ext. 1 in presence of the witnesses and sealed the bag. P.R. was submitted against the Petitioner u/s 47(a) of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act for possession of contraband liquor.' 3. The plea of the Petitioner at the trial was denial of the recovery and seizure of the materials from his possession. It is further pleaded that he was falsely implicated in this case. 4. The learned trial Court relying on the testimony of P.W. 1 accepted the prosecution case of seizure of I.D. liquor from the possession of the Petitioner and found him guilty of the offence u/s 47(a) of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for seven days and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo S.I. for one month. The learned Sessions Judge also relying on the testimony of the official witness, P.W. 1 and factum of seizure maintained the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner. 5. During the hearing of the case Mr. Ratho, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner raised two contentions namely the prosecution case should not have been accepted only basing on the statement of the official witness and the liquor not having been properly put to chemical analysis could not have been said to be I.D. liquor. 5. During the hearing of the case Mr. Ratho, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner raised two contentions namely the prosecution case should not have been accepted only basing on the statement of the official witness and the liquor not having been properly put to chemical analysis could not have been said to be I.D. liquor. On the other hand, I find from the record that both those contentions were raised before the learned appellate Court, who for good reasons repelled both the contentions. Relying on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Madhu Sundhi v. State of Orissa, 55(1983) C.L.T. 360, he has found that both the litmus test and the hydrometer test taken together would go to prove that liquor was I.D. liquor. He has also held relying on the two authorities reported in 1975 Criminal Law Journal, 1630, (State of Punjab v. Rameshwar Dass) and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Booti Nath that the testimony of police and excise officials should not be discarded even though they were not corroborated by non-official witnesses. 6. From the foregoing discussions I would hold that both the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner fail. I, therefore, find no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. 7. As to sentence I find that the sentence of S.I. for seven days would meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine is therefore set aside. With the aforesaid modification of sentence, the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed