JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The petitioner has been convicted u/s 47 (a) and (f) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act (in short, the 'Act'). The trial Court had imposed sentence of R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, S. I. for six months. The appellate Court while confirming the order of conviction has reduced the sentence to R. I. for six months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, S. I. for one month. By Order No. 10, dated 16-2-1995, this Court issued notice of enhancement of sentence. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 20-12-1991 at about 1 00 p. m. the Sub-Inspector of Excise, Surada Charge, while was patrolling at Badaponasahi received information that the accused was preparing I. D. liquor and as such he want and searched the place of the accused in presence of witnesses and recovered one earthen 'mathia' (pot) containing 20 littres of I.D. liquor and 65 earthen posts each containing 20 Kgs. of formented mohua mixed with Gur 'pocha'. After undertaking litmus paper and hydrometer tests, the S. I. of Excise found that the liquor seized was I. D. liquor. He drew sample of 'pocha' (mohua mixed with Gur 'pocha') from one earthen pot and destroyed the remaining number of earthen posts allegedly containing mohua mixed with Gur 'pocha'. After completion of investigation he submitted prosecution report alleging commission of offence u/s 47 (a) and (f) of the Act. 3. The plea of the accused was one of denial. 4. During the trial, prosecution examined 4 witnesses of whom PWs 1 and 2, the two independent witnesses to search and seizure, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. PW 3 is the S.I. of Excise and PW 4 is the Constable who accompanied him. Relying upon the evidence of PWs 3 and 4, both the Courts below have convicted the petitioner u/s 47 (a) and (f) of the Act. 5. In this revision which has been heard as an appeal in view of the notice of enhancement, the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the veracity of the evidence of PWs 3 and 4. He has also submitted that in the absence of any chemical analysis of the seized liquor and 'pcoha' it cannot be said beyond all reasonable doubts that, in fast, the seized liquor was I. D liquor. He has also submitted that in the absence of any chemical analysis of the seized liquor and 'pcoha' it cannot be said beyond all reasonable doubts that, in fast, the seized liquor was I. D liquor. He further submitted that in the absence of any seizure of any apparatus or utensil et cetera, it cannot be said that the petitioner was guilty u/s 47 (f) of the Act. 6. PW 3 claims that he has departmental experience of twenty years and has undergone distillery training. Such statement of PW 3 has not been issailed in any manner in cross-examination. Though no chemical analysis has been made, on the basis of evidence of PW 3, who had ample experience in the field, as corroborated by the litmus paper test as well as hydrometer test, it is reasonable to come to a conclusion that the liquor seized from the possession of the petitioner was, in fact, I. D. liquor. Though the independent witnesses have not corroborated the evidence of PWs 3 and 4, there is no contradiction in the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 to doubt their evidence regarding actual seizure of twenty litres of I. D. liquor. In such view of the matter there is nothing to interfere with the finding regarding guilt of the petitioner u/s 47 (a) of the Act. 7. So far as the conviction u/s 47 (f) is concerned, it appears from the evidence of PW 3 that the accused had not kept any other material needed for preparation of liquor at the spot. There is contradiction in the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 regarding formenting mohua and Gur. According to PW 3 the accused was mixing the 'pocha', whereas according to PW 4 the accused was trying to conceal the 'pocha'. In view of such discrepancy and in the absence of any other corroborative evidence, it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the petitioner u/s 47 (f) of the Act. 8. Next comes the question of sentence. Notice of enhancement had been issued on the footing that though the petitioner was found guilty u/s 47 (a) and (f), the appellate Court had imposed only a combined sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- without passing any separate sentence for each offence. 8. Next comes the question of sentence. Notice of enhancement had been issued on the footing that though the petitioner was found guilty u/s 47 (a) and (f), the appellate Court had imposed only a combined sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- without passing any separate sentence for each offence. Now that the petitioner is acquitted of the charge u/s 47 (f) the question of imposing separate sentence for offence u/s 47 (f) does not arise. As, such, the notice of enhancement is discharged. 9. There is no allegation that the petitioner was involved in any previous offence and as such appears to be a first offender. During investigation and trial he had undergone about eight days of imprisonment. The allegation u/s 47 (f) having not been, accepted, the petitioner has been found guilty u/s 47 (a) of the Act for being in possession of 20 litres of I. D. liquor. Having regard to the fact that there was no previous conviction against the petitioner and his age and social background and the fact that the occurrence had taken place more than five years back, it would not be proper to send the petitioner to jail again and instead, interest of justice would be served if fine is imposed. Therefore, while reducing the period of imprisonment to the period already undergone, I direct that the petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 10. The revision is accordingly allowed in part. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge u/s 47 (f) and convicted u/s 47 (a) of the Act; the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone and the accused is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1.500/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.