S. K. MOHANTY, J. ( 1 ) IN this revision, the petitioner assails his conviction for the offence under section 7 (a) of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 and sentence of simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500. 00 in default, simple imprisonment for a further period of one month imposed on him by Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Berhampur and affirmed by Sessions Judge, Ganjam, by the impugned judgment. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION alleged that on 25. 2. 1986 at Bijipur area in-the town of Berhampur, the petitioner was selling liquor inside a house. The petitioner took the plea that the case has been falsely foisted against him. ( 3 ) PROSECUTION examined four witnesses, out of whom P. W. 2 is the A. S. I. and P. W. 4 the Inspector of Excise. Both claimed to have gone inside the above house and finding the petitioner selling liquor, seized two plastic jerricans (M. Os. I and II) containing 5 and 3 litres of 1. 0. liquor in presence of two local witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2. P. Ws. 1 and 2, however, did not support the prosecution case. Relying on the testimony of the two excise officers, the learned Magistrate recorded the order of conviction and passed the sentence aforestated. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner attacked the order of conviction and sentence on the grounds that the petitioner has been prejudiced at the trial as no opportunity was given to him to cross- examine P. W. 4; and the prosecution case cannot be said to have been established as there is no corroboration by any independent witness. On the point of sentence, it was argued that the petitioner being a first offender, considering the quantum of liquor seized in the case, a much lesser sentence would be proper even if the order of conviction is maintained. ( 5 ) AS to the alleged prejudice, I find from the record that P. W. 4 was examined on 12/2/1988 on which date the accused was represented under section 317, Cr. P. C. It is clearly noted both in the deposition as well as in the order-sheet that cross-examination of this witness was declined, obviously by the counsel for the defence. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded on 15/2/1988 and arguments were heard on 17/2/1988 in presence of the accused. P. C. It is clearly noted both in the deposition as well as in the order-sheet that cross-examination of this witness was declined, obviously by the counsel for the defence. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded on 15/2/1988 and arguments were heard on 17/2/1988 in presence of the accused. The accused did not make any grievance that he had not been afforded opportunity to cross-examine P. W. 4 either on 15/2/1988 or on 17/2/1988. Consequently the submission made in this Court that the accused was not afforded opportunity to cross-examine P. W. 4 and has thereby been prejudiced at the trial is devoid of any force. ( 6 ) THE evidence of the A. S. I. and the Inspector of Excise corroborate each other. Of course there is no - independent corroboration. The learned counsel for the petitioner pressed into service the decisions of this Court in Bhajana Sahu v. State of Orissa and Biswanath Sahu v. State of Orissa, in support of the argument that without independent corroboration accused should be acquitted. In Bhajana, besides the fact that the independent witness did not support the prosecution case, the seized liquor was also not produced in court. In Biswanath, there was only the evidence of one excise officer and no seizure witness had been examined. Liquor seized was also not produced in court. In such circumstances the accused was acquitted. Thus there were some special circumstances in those cases. In the case at hand two excise officers have been examined and both corroborate each other. That apart, two jerricans containing 5 litres and 3 litres of I. D. liquor had been produced in court and marked as N. Cr. I and II. Consequently the above decisions can be of no help to the prosecution. Excise officials are public servants and there is a legal presumption that public servants act honestly and conscientiously. The conduct and performance of such public servants cannot be looked upon with distrust and suspicion unless there is reasonable basis therefor. There is no material on record to show that the two public servants nourished grudge against the accused. Thus there is no reasonable basis to suspect the conduct and performance of the two excise officials. ( 7 ) I do not find any substantial ground to disturb the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The order of conviction is, therefore, confirmed. Thus there is no reasonable basis to suspect the conduct and performance of the two excise officials. ( 7 ) I do not find any substantial ground to disturb the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The order of conviction is, therefore, confirmed. The petitioner is aged about 40 years. The incident took place six years back. Only 3 litres of liquor were seized. There is no material to show that the petitioner carried on business in I. D. Liquor. On somewhat similar facts in Sukuru Behara v. State, Tirtha Naik v. State and Budhuram Singh v. State of Orissa, the sentences of imprisonment were reduced to period already undergone. In the facts of the case therefore. I am of the view that sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one month would meet the ends or justice. ( 8 ) IN the result, while maintaining the order of conviction, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to one month simple imprisonment and sentence of fine is set aside. With this modification in sentences, the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.