JUDGMENT : B. Panigrahi, J. - The petitioner, having been aggrieved by the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence u/s 47(a), Bihar and Orissa Excise Act dated 14-4-1993 by the Sessions Judge, Jeypore, has preferred this revision. The petitioner was prosecuted u/s 47(a) of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1947 and after trial, was convicted and sentenced to undergo S. 1. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo S. 1. for one month more, 2. The facts leading to the prosecution against the petitioner are described hereunder: PW 1, an A. S. I. of Police, Jaypore town P. S. while conducting patrol duty intercepted the petitioner who was found moving in a suspicious manner with a motor tube containing some liquid substance. In presence of witnesses, on search, the motor tuba contained I. D. liquor measuring 25 litres. PW 1 prepared the seizure list in presence of other prosecution witnesses, namely, PWs 2 to 4 and sent the sample for examination by the Excise Sub-Inspector, Jeypore, On examination; PW 5 noticed that the tube contained I. D. liquor. PW 6 was satisfied with the examination by hydrometer and litmus paper tests and confirmed that the motor tube contained I.D. liquor. Thereafter the petitioner was challenged to the Court and on completion of trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jeypore having been satisfied with the materials recorded the conviction u/s 47(a), Bihar and Orissa Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentenced him to undergo S.1 for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs. 600/-, in default of the same, S. 1. lot one month more. The petitioner basing aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, preferred an appeal before the Sessions judge, Jeypore which ended with the same result. Being aggrieved by the. judgments of both the Courts below, She petitioner has preferred this revision. 3. Mr. Patnaik the learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced several contentions. He strongly urged that the prosecution having failed to send the sample to the chemical analyst, litmus paper test and hydrometer test conducted by the Excise S. 1. was not sufficient to come to a reasonable conclusion that the petitioner was possessing I. D. liquor. It is further argued that the learned Courts below have committed . He strongly urged that the prosecution having failed to send the sample to the chemical analyst, litmus paper test and hydrometer test conducted by the Excise S. 1. was not sufficient to come to a reasonable conclusion that the petitioner was possessing I. D. liquor. It is further argued that the learned Courts below have committed . gross illegality in implicity relying on the evidence of the prosecution whose version is inconsistent and untrustworthy, as such not free from comment. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate while supporting the judgment of the Courts below, has, however, advanced his contention that in this case, the prosecution has proved that the petitioner was in conscious possession of S.D. liquor. In view of the consistent evidence of PWs 1 to 4, both the Courts below did not find any other alternative than to hold that the accused petitioner was possessing I. D. liquor. 5. The prosecution has examined PWs 3 and 4 who are alleged to be independent witnesses, over and above, the police officials, PWs 1 and 2. On a cursory glance of the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, it appears that the accused who was moving with a motor tube was intercepted and detained, On search, it was found that he was possessing some liquid substance. This aspect of the case received ample corroboration from the testimony of the independent witnesses PWs 3 and 4. In the above context, I am of the view that there was no infirmity in the prosecution story regarding the search and seizure of the materials from the petitioner,, 6. it is next to be considered whether the liquid contained in the motor tube said to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner was I.D. liquor. The prosecution has laid much emphasis on the testimony of PW 5. PW 5 is the Excise official and it is said that he is the most competent person to examine and certify whether the liquid in question is I. D, liquor or not. According to the Additional Government Advocate, chemical analysis of the liquid is not sine qua non to arrive at the conclusion that it is I. D. liquor. Since there are plethora of decisions of this Court, even a liquid can be said to be I. D. liquor without the chemical analysis. According to the Additional Government Advocate, chemical analysis of the liquid is not sine qua non to arrive at the conclusion that it is I. D. liquor. Since there are plethora of decisions of this Court, even a liquid can be said to be I. D. liquor without the chemical analysis. This can also be otherwise ascertained by litmus paper test and hydrometer test. in this regard, all the previous Bench decisions have been discussed in detail in a recent judgment passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice L, Rath, reported in 1993(6) OCR 612 (Suma Das v. State of Orissa). on a brief resume of the earlier decision, the Court held that though in principle chemical test is laid down to be the surest test to establish the character of the seized article as I. D, liquor, yet the view has been adopted that in the absence of such test, other evidence is admissible to reach the same conclusion and that where both the litmus paper and hydrometer tests are done by an experienced and specially trained officer, opinion of such officer is acceptable to establish the identity of the seized article as I. D. liquor, 7. The reason why the evidence of such experienced and specially trained officer should have far reaching effect, is that he is an expert on the subject. His testimony gains importance as that of an expert evidence u/s 45 of the Evidence Act. The section requires, inter alia, that the opinion of only person specially skilled in the relevant science or art is acceptable as expert evidence. Therefore, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that the Excise official has had special skill which may be resultant upon specially trained in the line. Mere statement of an officer that he has put in service for number of years would not ipso facto qualify him as an expert unless it is further shown that he has been specially trained for this purpose or has acquired skill in the matter so that he would be rightfully called an expert. 8. Bearing the aforesaid principle in mind, let me now turn to the evidence of P.W.6. PW5 does not whisper a word that he had. special training from which he could come to the conclusion that it was I. D. liquor. 8. Bearing the aforesaid principle in mind, let me now turn to the evidence of P.W.6. PW5 does not whisper a word that he had. special training from which he could come to the conclusion that it was I. D. liquor. His testimony does not further establish as to how many years of service he had already put in the department. The motor tube was not produced in Court. From his evidence, the strength of the liquid is said to be 78.4? UP. In the decision cited supra, it is found that while the I. D. liquor may have the density or may have the range of density, mere fact that the seized article when put to hydrometer contains density of I. D. liquor would by itself not unmistakably show that the liquid is I. D. liquor, it is possible to consider that some other liquid may have also the same density. Thus the combined effect of litmus and hydro- meter would show acidic in nature and density is similar to that of I. D. liquor. But both the tests put together would not avoid the possibility that the liquid is not I. D. liquor. In some peculiar cases if such tests are conducted by an experienced and specially trained officer and it is testified that either from the other test or from the smell or from both or all that liquid is I. D. liquor. In that case the prosecution case may be believed. The learned Additional Government Advocate could not satisfy from the evidence that PW 5 stated to have undergone special training on the subject nor from his evidence it is evident about his past experience in the field. 9. in the above premises the evidence of PW 5 does not appear to be satisfactory that the seized liquid was I.D. liquor, particularly in the absence of non-production of the material object in the trial Court, From the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, found that both the Courts below have failed to take this aspect into consideration and had wrongly reached the conclusion that the petitioner was in possession of I.D. liquor. 10. in the result, the revision is allowed and the sentence and conviction u/s 47 (a) of the Act are hereby set aside. The bail bond, if filed, would stand cancelled. Final Result : Allowed