JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The petitioner has been convicted under Section 47(a) and (f) of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days on each count. The sentences were directed to run consecutively by the trial Court. 2. The appeal of the petitioner having been dismissed by the 2nd. Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur, the present revision has been filed challenging the order of conviction and sentence. 3. The prosecution case is as follows. On 28.9.90 at about 11.15 p.m. the S.I. of Excise, P.W.4 got information about the distillation of I.D. liquor in village Ranigaon. Accordingly P.W.4 and his staff raided the spot. By the time of search the distillation of liquor was already over and it was found that the petitioner was getting ready to proceed to his destination with the I.D. liquor. P.W.4 recovered certain incriminating materials including liquor and after due investigation submitted prosecution report against the petitioner under Section 47(a) and (f) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. 4. The plea of accused person was one of denial. 5. P.Ws.1 and 5, the two seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Belying upon the evidence of three official witnesses who had participated at the time of raid, the Courts below have convicted the petitioner. 6. In this revision the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the absence of independent corroboration to the evidence of official witnesses, the order of conviction should not be sustained. In the alternative, he submits that even assuming that the order of conviction is justified, the sentence appears to be excessive. 7. So far as the first contention is concerned, there is nothing to differ from the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Even though the seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, the Courts below have relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 2,3 and 4. On going through the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, I do not find any substantial reason to differ from the findings of the Courts below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the finding of guilt is hereby sustained. 2,3 and 4. On going through the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, I do not find any substantial reason to differ from the findings of the Courts below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the finding of guilt is hereby sustained. So far as the sentence is concerned, it appears that there is no allegation regarding petitioner's prior involvement in any offence. As found from the judgment of the trial Court the petitioner was aged about 61 years at the time of occurrence which took place in September, 1990. By now six years have elapsed and the petitioner is nearing 70 years. Keeping in view the fact that it was his first offence and keeping in view the age of the petitioner, it would not be in the interest of justice to send the petitioner to jail at this point of time and the interest of justice shall be amply served if the petitioner is directed to pay a consolidated fine of Rs. 1,500/- for the offences. Accordingly while sustaining the order of conviction, I modify the sentence and direct that the petitioner should pay a consolidated fine of Rs. 1,500/- in default, he is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 8. Subject to the modification in the sentence, this Criminal Revision is dismissed.