JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Balotra dated 15.5.84 whereby the order passed by learned Munsif Magistrate, Siwana di 27.3.81 was confirmed, by which the petitioner has convicted u/ Section (2) Rajasthan Prohibition Act and sentenced him to six months R.I. with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo further one month S.I. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 1.4.1976, Excise Inspector, Balotra on information searched house of the petitioner Nain Singh and found articles used in preparing liquor along with one pitcher full of wash from one 'Bada' situated behind the house of the petitioner. Samples of wash was taken and articles were seized. The sample was sent for chemical examination. After due investigation challan was filed. The petitioner in his statement u/ Section 13 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The learned Magistrate after conclusion of the trial found the petitioner guilty under section (2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act and sentenced him. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra but the same was dismissed. Hence, this revision. 3. Mr. Doongar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution has failed to bring on record the complete and full linking evidence from the stage of recovery to the final stage of chemical analysis of the recovered articles. He has also submitted that everybody was in access to 'Bada' and it has also not been proved that the 'Bada' from where the articles were recovered was in exclusive possession of the petitioner. He has placed reliance on State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram ( AIR 1980 SC 1314 ) and prayed that the petitioner has been wrongly convicted. 4. Mr. D.R. Bohra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order passed by the Courts below and submitted that the petitioner has been rightly convicted. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. In this case, it is pertinent to note that charge has been framed against Nain Singh s/o Panney Singh on 19.2.81 whereas recoveries have been made from Nain Singh s/o Bhoor Singh, the petitioner, be that as it may. The prosecution has produced five witnesses in support of its case. P.W.3 Mahesh Chand, Excise Inspector has stated that he recovered the articles and took the sample on 1.4.76. The prosecution has produced five witnesses in support of its case. P.W.3 Mahesh Chand, Excise Inspector has stated that he recovered the articles and took the sample on 1.4.76. He has also stated that the articles alongwith the sample remained with him for about one month and thereafter it was sent for chemical examination. P.W.4 Rupa Ram, Circle Inspector Excise has stated that bottle was given to him by P.W. 3 Mahesh Chand on 5.7.76 and the same was deposited in Chief Public Analyst Department on the same day. As per endorsement of chemical examination report Ex. P-7, the sample had reached Chief Public Analyst Department on 5.7.76. It is clear form the perusal of testimony of these witnesses that the sample was taken on 1.4.76 which was sent with Rupa Ram for chemical examination on 5.7.76. There is no evidence as to where the sample remained between 1.4.76 to 5.7.76 except for a period of one month during which it remained with P.W.3 Mahesh Chand. Assuming that the sample remained intact for one month with P. W .3 Mahesh Chand, still for the period from 1.5.76 to 5.7.1976, nothing has been said and the delay in sending sample on 5.7.76 has not been explained. The Malkhana incharge has not been produced. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to discharge its onus to prove that samples remained intact from the date of seizure till it has reached in the hands of public analyst, which is fatal to the prosecution particularly when two motbirs in whose presence the articles were seized viz. Budharam and Rikhabchand have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to show any evidence in this regard. So far as the question of exclusive possession of 'Bada' is concerned, it has come on record that everybody has an access to the 'Bada' of the petitioner at least the neighbour Narain Singh. Keeping in view, the principle laid down by their lordships of the Supreme Court in State v. Daulat Ram (supra) and under the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the conviction of petitioner under section (2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act cannot be sustained, as there is miscarriage of justice and this Court in its revisional jurisdiction can interfere in such matters. 6. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. 6. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The conviction of the petitioner Nain Singh under section (2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act is quashed and he is acquitted of the aforesaid charge. The orders passed by the learned Courts below are set aside. The petitioner is already on bail, so he need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged.Petition allowed. *******