ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS assail their conviction u/s. 47, cls. (a) and (f) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (in short 'the Act') and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default R. I. for two months in respect of each of the offences. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The conviction and sentence is awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baripada were upheld in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada. ( 2 ) THE accusation leading to the prosecution is that on 2-11-1982, P. W. 3, the Sub inspector of Excise, Baripada (Mobile) while patrolling with his staff found that accused-petitioners distilling Illicit Distilled Liquor (in short I. D. Liquor) on the bank of Jambhira river. They found four drums each containing 40 Kgs. of molasses, mahua hot wash, four aluminium frying pans, four plastic pipes, one copper pipe and one kerosine tin used as receiver containing four litres of hot I. D. Liquor. They also found large number of empty drums. One plastic jar containing 30 litres of liquor and another containing 11 litres of I. D. Liquor were also found. All the articles were seized in presence of witnesses and a copy of the seizure list was given to the accused persons and their L. T. Is. were obtained on the seizure list in token of their having received copy thereof. Signatures of witnesses to the seizure were also obtained. As there was no immediate mode of transportation available to transport the various drums etc. only the plastic jars containing liquor were taken and the rest were kept in the custody of a person present. Prosecution report was filed. While four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, no witness was examined on behalf of the defence. ( 3 ) THE plea of the accused persons petitioners was one of denial. ( 4 ) P. WS. 2 and 3 were witnesses to the seizure. During trial they feigned their ignorance about the seizure, but accepted to have put their signatures on being asked. P. W. 1 is an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise, who was also a witness to the seizure and also deposed about complicity of the accused persons. ( 4 ) P. WS. 2 and 3 were witnesses to the seizure. During trial they feigned their ignorance about the seizure, but accepted to have put their signatures on being asked. P. W. 1 is an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise, who was also a witness to the seizure and also deposed about complicity of the accused persons. ( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate on discussion of evidence held that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the accused-petitioners, and he found that the evidence of the two departmental witnesses, i. e. , P. Ws. 1 and 4 was acceptable and had not been shaken after thorough cross-examination. Accepting their evidence to be depicting the correct picture, he convicted the accused persons. Before the learned Sessions Judge primarily challenges were to the effect that there was no evidence to show that the seized liquor was illicit liquor; no independent witness was examined, the witnesses to the seizure having not supported the prosecution version, the same was bound to fail; and the question to the accused persons during their examination u/s. 316, Criminal P. C. 1973 (in short 'the Code') being unintelligible, they were materially prejudiced, and therefore, the conviction and sentence are unsustainable. These did not find favour with the learned Sessions Judge. ( 6 ) THE contentions are reiterated by the learned counsel for the petitioners before me. The learned counsel for the State, however, states that illicit liquor is corroding national health and unless crimes involving it are curbed with an iron hand, the consequences would be disastrous. It is also submitted that on elaborate analysis of evidence, conviction has been made and the sentence is also not harsh, and no interference is called for in revision. ( 7 ) COMING to the question whether the seized liquor was identified correctly to be illicit distilled liquor, I find that both blue litmus test and hydrometer test were done, and the liquor seized was found to be illicit distilled liquor. The Officer conducting the test (P. W. 4) had long experience of about 22 years as an Excise Officer, and he had undergone training in the line. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the evidence of this witness so far as identity of the seizued liquor is concerned. The Officer conducting the test (P. W. 4) had long experience of about 22 years as an Excise Officer, and he had undergone training in the line. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the evidence of this witness so far as identity of the seizued liquor is concerned. ( 8 ) COMING to the question whether any independent witness is a must before a conviction can be made, the position is settled beyond dispute by a large number of decisions including one delivered by me. Examination of an independent witnesses is a requirement of caution and is not a mandatory requirement. Availability of such witnesses is a relevant factor. Specific case of P. Ws. 1 and 4 is to the effect that after seizure of articles, no one volunteered to come forward to be witness except P. Ws. 2 and 3; P. W. 2 has admitted his signature in the seizure list and has also admitted about the seizure. The evidence of p. W. 2 does not throw much light. He is an illiterate person. Though he put his D. T. I. in the seizure list, his evidence does not corroborate the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 4. The question is whether on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 4, the departmental officers, conviction can be maintained. As observed by the Supreme Court in AIR 1978 SC 1511 : (1978 Cri LJ 1531) Modan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, if the evidence of the Investigating Officer who recovered the material is convincing, there is no reason to say that if the seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution version, it must fail. No material has been brought on record to show that there has been false implication by the departmental officers. The evidence of the departmental officers, viz; P. Ws. 1 and 4 is credible and acceptable. Therefore, conviction is permissible on their evidence. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners on that score fails. ( 9 ) THE residual question is whether the petitioners were prejudiced by long complicated sentence which was put to the accused persons at the time of recording accused statement. Desirability of bringing the substance of accusation in a precise and definite manner cannot be gainsaid. In fact, a similar view was taken by me in (1990) 70 Cut LT 558, Nidhr Sahu v State. Desirability of bringing the substance of accusation in a precise and definite manner cannot be gainsaid. In fact, a similar view was taken by me in (1990) 70 Cut LT 558, Nidhr Sahu v State. Ultimately however, the questions whether the petitioners are prejudiced. As rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, though the question was somewhat cumbersome and could have been broken into simple questions, it has not been shown as to how prejudice was caused. During trial the petitioners did not raise a question about prejudice. While answering the question also the petitioners did not say that they were unable to answer effectively because of complexity of the question. For the first time at the appellate stage the question, of prejudice was raised. Whether prejudice has been caused or not, is inferable from facts which are to be placed by the party asserting prejudice. In the instant case the accused-petitioners have not brought any material during trial to show any prejudice. Therefore, the submission in that regard also is not acceptable. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even if the conviction is maintained, a liberal sentence should be awarded considering the fact that the petitioners are poor persons. Petitioner No. 1 was in his twenties at the time of trial and petitioner No. 2 in his early thirties then. Illicit distilled liquor is corroding national health. Large number of people are either losing their lives or getting physical invalidity on account of consumption of illicit liquor. The crime is definitely against the society and considering the fact that the petitioners were manufacturing illicit distilled liquor and are not mere petty carriers, in my view, any liberal sentence would encourage such crimes. A punishment acts as a deterrent, and serves as a warning to others to feel disinclined to indulge in such illegal activity. While it cannot be disputed that modern penology also includes attempted reformation, yet any liberal sentence would encourage crime instead of discouraging it and, therefore, a liberal sentence is not called for. Considering in that background, I do not find any scope for interference with the sentence awarded by the courts below. The criminal revision is dismissed. Petition dismissed.