JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment of learned Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar dated 13.5.1982 he has confirmed the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Raisinghnagar dated 21.8 81. 2. Brief facts which give rise to this petition are that on 30.3.78 one Baney Singh, Excise Inspector along with Harisingh and Excise Party was going towards Jaitsar. They saw a jeep RJR 7565 coming from Jaitsar. On suspicion the jeep was stopped, which was driven by the petitioner and Hansraj and Gurucharan Singh were sitting on the wrong seats. On search 16 bags containing 380 bottles of liquor made by Rajasthan Excise Department were found. After making search memo, all the three persons were arrested and samples from 4 bottles were taken separately. They committed an offence under section 54(a) of the Rajasthan Excise Act as they did not possess valid licence or permit and the jeep was confiscated. After due investigation, the department submitted a challan against all the three persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and denied the recovery of liquor. During trial Baney Singh P.W.l, Hari Singh, Jamadar P.W.3, and Chananmal P.W.2, who took the samples, were examined. The learned trial court after conclusion of the trial found all the persons guilty under section 54 (a) of the Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced them to 1 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of the payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment tor three months. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 3. Mr. Manoj Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of 384 bottles samples from only four bottles were taken. He has also submitted that Ramnath Malkhana Incharge was not examined by the prosecution to prove that sample in custody remained intact and the same were not tempered. He has further submitted that without giving any finding that the seized goods were in physical and conscious possession, particularly when the other two accused persons were acquitted by the same learned Judge on same date though by a separate order, so, petitioners conviction cannot be sustained. He has placed reliance on Babulal v. State of Rajasthan (Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1980-509) and Shanker v. State of Rajasthan (Cr.L.R. 1985-600) . 4. Mr. He has placed reliance on Babulal v. State of Rajasthan (Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1980-509) and Shanker v. State of Rajasthan (Cr.L.R. 1985-600) . 4. Mr. V.S. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that admittedly the petitioner was driving the jeep and was found with the bottles which were made by Rajasthan Excise Department, so it was not necessary to get all these bottles chemically examined as liquor was found in four bottles. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order. 5. I have heard Mr. Manoj Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. S. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. Undoubtedly, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the sample of incriminating articles reached the office of the Chemical Examiner in the same condition in which it was taken by the police officer and seal remained intact and not tempered from the date of seizure till it has reached to the chemical examiner. 6. In Shanker v. State of Rajasthan (supra) out of 133 bottles only two bottles containing the liquid were sent to the Chief Public Analyst, Jaipur and it was found that they contain liquor and for the rest it was presumed that they are of the same pattern and size. It was observed that same two bottles containing the liquid were sent for chemical examination to the Chief Public Analyst and on chemical examination they were found to contain the liquor, what can be held is that only two bottles of liquor were found in the possession of the accused. It cannot be positively said that the remaining 131 bottles containing liquid, found in possession of the accused were of liquor. 7. In the instant case, Bhawani Shanker has stated that bottles remained in Malkhana of Police Station. He has further stated that four bottles were sent for chemical examination to Jaipur on 14-6-78 with Nanak Chand Guard and till then they remained intact in his possession and their seal was not tempered. The Malkhana Incharge was not produced who kept the bottles with him and there is no evidence for taking samples of remaining bottles and that they remained intact. Therefore, without there being any evidence it cannot be positively presumed that the remaining bottles contain liquor. The samples from only four bottles were taken out of 384 bottles and on chemical examination it was found that they contain liquor. Therefore, without there being any evidence it cannot be positively presumed that the remaining bottles contain liquor. The samples from only four bottles were taken out of 384 bottles and on chemical examination it was found that they contain liquor. On the basis of it the learned trial court presumed that bottles were containing liquor without examining them, is not correct. However, the petitioner is certainly liable for the offence for having been in possession of four bottles of liquor. 8. It was lastly contended by Mr. Garg, that the bottles were not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and he has relied on Gurdayal Singh v. The State of Rajasthan (Cr L.R. (Raj.) 1976-382 , Satya Narain v. State of of Raj. (RLW 1984-48 ) and Yashpal & Narain v. State of Rajasthan (RLW 1985-456 ). 9. In Gurudayal Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra) contraband opium was found in truck contained in 10 bags and the truck was driven by Guru Dayal accused even on sign; 1 he did not stop and the owner of the truck was Keshar Singh. There is no evidence as to the knowledge of the petitioner Gurudayal and his conviction was set aside and he was acquitted on the ground that it could not safely be presumed that he was carrying bags containing opium in the truck. 10. In Satya Nara n v. The State of Rajasthan (supra) opium was found in the dickey of opened by driver Satya Narain of taxi car which was hired by two passengers, it was held that he had no conscious possession, on this, revision was allowed and the conviction was set aside. 11. In Yashpal & Narain v. State of Rajasthan (supra) opium was found in an attach lying in the dicky of car was driven by Dhanna but none was convicted. 12. In the instant case Ashok Kumar was driving the jeep RJR 7556 and he has purchased it from Jagdish and Kishan on 6-7-77 as per his own affidavit filed on 4-4-78. 12. In the instant case Ashok Kumar was driving the jeep RJR 7556 and he has purchased it from Jagdish and Kishan on 6-7-77 as per his own affidavit filed on 4-4-78. In view of this when he was in exclusive possession of the jeep since 5-7-77 and was also a driver, it was his abundant duty to know what goods are being taken in his jeep and if such contraband goods are recovered from the jeep which was owned and driven by him, it can be presumed that it is within his knowledge and he cannot excape with the liability that he was not knowing, if does not prove otherwise In this case admittedly 16 bags containing 381 bottles of liquor made by Raj. Excise Department were recovered on 30-7-78 and out of it at least four bottles of liquor were found without permit. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that it was not found from his conscious possession and was not within his knowledge, more particularly when the other two persons joined him in the way only have been acquitted by the learned appellate court. In this view of the matter, the cases cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not helpful. Under these circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the courts below. However, Mr. Garg, has submitted that the incident has taken place in the year 1978 and the accused has remained in jail above one month and no useful purpose will be served if he is again sent behind the bars to serve out the remaining sentence. I am of the view that ends of justice would be served if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him and sentence of fine is reduced from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 1000/- for which three months time is allowed failing which the trial court will proceed against the accused according to law. 13. In the result, this revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner under section 54 (a) is maintained, however, sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and fine of Rs. 2000/- is reduced to Rs. 1000/- for which three months time is allowed failing which the trial court will proceed against him according to law. The accused petitioner is on bail so he need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged.Party allowed. 2000/- is reduced to Rs. 1000/- for which three months time is allowed failing which the trial court will proceed against him according to law. The accused petitioner is on bail so he need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged.Party allowed. *******