ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) CONVICTION for unauthorized possession of opium in terms of Section 9 of the Opium Act, 1878 (in short the Act) and consequential sentence of three months imprisonment awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Transport), Berhampur (in shor the 'jmfc'), upheld by learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur form subject matter of challenge in this revision application. ( 2 ) ACCUSATION leading to trial of petitioner are as follows :- on 11-11-1985 at about 12 noon, officials of Excise Department, State of Orissa found the petitioner carrying two bags containing about 8 kgs. of opium poppy capsule powder. After investigation, prosecution report under Section 20-G of the Act was submitted. Petitioner faced trial for unauthorized possession of opium. ( 3 ) THREE witnesses were examined to further prosecution version. PW 1 was the A. S. I. of Excise who had effected seizure, and tested seized article to come to a prima facie view that it was opium. PW 2 was Excise Constable who had witnesses seizure, and PW 3 was an Inspector of Excise who had also tested seized article to find out whether it was opium. No material discrepancy in evidence of these witnesses was noticed by the learned J. M. F. C. He found the petitioner guilty and directed conviction and awarded sentence as aforesaid. Before the learned Sessions Judge, main plank of challenge by accused was that no scientific test was conducted to find out whether powder alleged to have been seized was opium or not. It was also urged that no independent witness was examined and, therefore, prosecution version was not acceptable. Learned Sessions Judge held that officials who tested seized article were experienced officers with vast experience and their version that seized article was opium, cannot be faulted. So far as non-examination of independent witness is concerned, it was observed that merely because independent witnesses were not examined, credibility of prosecution evidence was not affected, as it is not a statutory requirement that independent witnesses are to be examined. In the absence of any allegation of false implication or motivated prosecution, mere non-examination of any independent witness would not vitiate the order. ( 4 ) GROUNDS of challenge as were raised before the learned Sessions Judge were reiterated before me. In the absence of any allegation of false implication or motivated prosecution, mere non-examination of any independent witness would not vitiate the order. ( 4 ) GROUNDS of challenge as were raised before the learned Sessions Judge were reiterated before me. A conspectus of Section 4 and 9 of the Act makes it clear that while former section prohibits possession of opium unless permitted by the Act or any other enactment relating to opium for the time being in force or rules framed under the Act, or any such enactment, latter section prescribes penalty for contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or rules made or notified under Section 5 or 8. ( 5 ) COMING to the question whether Chemical analysis of article is necessary, suffice it would to say that same is not necessary in every case. Persons familiar with article can prove that it is opium by ordinary test of sight and smell. Undisputedly, PWs 1 and 3 are experienced officers and have about two decades of experience in dealing with such articles. Therefore, there is nothing illicit in the conclusions arrived at by Courts below to the effect that chemical test was not necessary and persons familiar with article can prove it by ordinary test of sight and smell. Opium is a substance which once seen and smelt can never be forgotten because it possesses a characteristic appearance and scent. It is possible for persons dealing with it to identify opium without having to subject the article to chemical analysis. Authenticity of sight and smell test was accepted by Supreme Court. Whether in a particular case opium should be sent for chemical analysis would depend on facts of each case. Since Courts below have relied on the test of sight and smell conducted by experienced officers, there is no scope for any interference. Much stress has been led by learned counsel for the petitioner on the statement of PW 1 in cross examination that he had not made any test "whatsoever". I feel that this statement is being taken out of context. What was probably meant by this witness was that no chemical test whatsoever was conducted. This is evident from his statement at all stages, including examination-in-chief that he had tested seized article by sight and smell test. PW 2 evidence corroborates this inference. I feel that this statement is being taken out of context. What was probably meant by this witness was that no chemical test whatsoever was conducted. This is evident from his statement at all stages, including examination-in-chief that he had tested seized article by sight and smell test. PW 2 evidence corroborates this inference. ( 6 ) SO far as the question whether non-examination of independent witnesses rendered proceeding vitiated is concerned, it is relevant to indicate that there is no statutory requirement of such examination. Evidence of public servants is not to be brushed aside as unreliable solely for the reason that they are interested for such raids being conducted, and in success of cases instituted by them. It is true that Excise officials cannot be regarded as absolutely independent witnesses, but any interest they may have for seeking success in a case is not sufficient to disbelieve their version and to discard it as unreliable. Evidence has to be evaluated on its own merit. Examination of an independent witness is a rule of caution and not a mandatory rule. Availability of such witnesses, their willingness to depose are matters to be considered. Unless it is established that official witnesses had any hostile animus or any basis for false implication, their evidence can form the basis for conviction. It has neither been pleaded nor established in the present case that any such contingency existed. Submission in this regard made by learned counsel for the petitioner is also without any substance. ( 7 ) SENTENCE awarded does not seem out of proportion considering quantity of opium seized and gravity of offence. The revision application, therefore, is without any merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.