This criminal revision is from the judgment dated 31.1.87 of Sri BN Sarma, Sessions, Judge, Guwahati, in Criminal Appeal No.6 (K-3)/86 upholding the judgment of conviction under section 4 of the Assam Liquor Prohibition Act, 1952, hereinafter 'the Act' and sentence to RI for 3 months and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to RI for one month, passed by Shri KC Gogoi, Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati, in Case No. 750 c of 1985 on 30.8.86. 2. The facts of the case : On 16.2.85 the Inspector of Excise with one Constable seized 5 litres of distilled liquor in a jar and 420 litres of fermented pachwai from the house of the petitioner at Noonmati. After more than a month the seized liquor was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Guwahati, on 22.3.85 and on that day the CJM recorded this order in the order sheet. "Seen the prayer of IE, Gauhati. Allowed take sample of I/D liquor for chemical examination in presence of Sri SM...Magistrate (J), Gauhati." In compliance with this order, the liquor was produced before the Magistrate (J) on 25.3.85, who also recorded this order in the same page of the order sheet: "Seized exhibits are produced before me and found seal in tact. Sample of ID liquor taken in my presence and rest quantity destroyed." Then the sample was sent to chemical examiner who, after examination sent a report stating that it was alcoholic liquor. After this the Inspector of Excise filed a case in the Court. 3. In the trial the prosecution examined only 2 PWs, namely, (1) Sri Biseswar Kataki, Excise Inspector (complainant), and (2) Sri Bakiram Das, the Excise Constable with whom he (Inspector) seized the liquor in a jar on 16.2.85. They exhibited the report from chemical examiner (Ext. 13). On evidence both the Courts have convicted the petitioner and sentenced as aforesaid. 4. Mr. JM Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner says : CJM's order does not show that at the time of producing the liquor before him on 22.3.35 the jar was sealed; and that being the state of thing, both the Courts were glaringly wrong in believing that the liquor which was subsequently produced before the Judicial Magistrate in a sealed up jar on 25.3.85 contained the same liquor which was seized from the petitioner on 16.2.85 and produced before CJM on 22.3.85 in an unsealed jar. The contention is impressive; so much so that Mr. Nur Mohammad, the learned PP could not have the guts to stand up to argue in support of the conviction. In a case under section 4 of the Act, the prosecution must prove that the sample sent for chemical examination was the one taken from the liquor which was seized from the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case this requirement has not b^'en satisfied because the record shows that the jar was not sealed even on 22.3.85 when it was produced before CJM and it was found sealed only on 25.3.85 ie the date on which it was produced before the Magistrate for taking the sample. This has given rise for doubt, which both the Courts filled to notice. The petitioner, therefore, is clearly entitled to get benefit of doubt. 5 Accordingly the revision is allowed and the impugned conviction and sentence are set aside; and the petitioner is acquitted from the charge. Bail bond, if any, is discharged.