P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) IN assailing the order of conviction passed by the learned J. M. F. C. Titilagarh in 2 (a) CC No. 28/92 (Tr. No. 81/92) for the offence u/s. 47 (f) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act (in short, 'the Act') and the concurring findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Crl. Appeal No. 16/1992, petitioner has preferred this Revision. ( 2 ) IN substance, prosecution case is that, on 11-4-91 the S. I. of Excise, P. W. 1, during the patrolling duty, on suspicion, raided the house of the petitioner and found him in possession of two earthen pots each containing 10 K. Gs. of fermented Mahua wash, one bamboo pipe used as an apparatus for distillation of liquor and emitting smell of liquor. He seized the said articles and apparatus in presence of D. W. 2, A. S. I. of Excise and two independent witnesses of that village P. Ws. 3 and 4. During trial P. Ws. 3 and 4 did not support the prosecution relating to the search and recovery however they admitted their signature in the seizure list Ext. 1 F. R. 1 stated in his evidence about the search and seizure of the aforesaid articles in accordance with law and following the procedures and also stated that from his long experience and training he could identify the seized article to be fermented Mahua wash kept for distillation of I. G. liquor. ( 3 ) LEARNED trial Court relied upon the evidence of P. W. 1 and the corroborative evidence of P. W. 2 and found the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 4 not to be against the theory of search and seizure. However, he did not believe the P. Ws. 3 and 4 regarding their ignorance about the search and seizure and treated them as untruthful witnesses. Relying on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 he found the offence to have been proved against the petitioner and accordingly convicted him under S. 47 (f) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for one month more. ( 4 ) THE conviction order was challenged before the appellate Court on the ground of unreliability of P. Ws. 500/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for one month more. ( 4 ) THE conviction order was challenged before the appellate Court on the ground of unreliability of P. Ws. 1 and 2 and non-proving of the articles to be the excisable artilces. The appellate Court rejected all such contentions or cogent reasons, upheld the conviction order but modified the sentence by reducing it to R. I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default, to undergo R. I. for fifteen days. ( 5 ) DURING the course of hearing reiterating the same points relating to non-reliability of P. Ws. 1 and 2 the conviction order was challenged in several manner. After reading the evidence in record and the impugned judgments this Court finds that the Courts below have properly assessed the evidence in record and have come to the right conclusion that the offence against the petitioner has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Under such circumstance there is no necessity of repeating the same set of appreciation of the facts and evidence. It is sufficient to indicate that this Court also concurrence with the said findings on fact. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also argued that keeping in view the young age of the petitioner and no record of previous conviction he should be given an opportunity to reform and therefore the punishment inflicted may be reduced to fine alone. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel, on the other hand, opposed to the aforesaid argument on the ground that the appellate Court without indicating good reasons has already reduced the minimum sentence prescribed u/s. 47 of the Act and, therefore, further modification in sentence may not be done. ( 7 ) WHILE arguing on the question of reduction of sentence learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision reported in (1989) 68 CLT 257 : (1989 Cri LJ (NOC) 218), Sukaru Dehora v. State of Orissa (1989) 63 CLT SN 36, Munu Dei v. Srinibas Sahu, 1996 Cri LJ 377, Karuppiah v. The State, and 1992 Cri LJ 3525, Rajendra Palarem Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, but of the aforesaid decisions the case of Sukuru Behara (supra) is found to be relevant being on a similar matter. Hon'ble Shri A. Pasayat, J. in that decision, while upholding the conviction of the petitioner u/s. 47 (a) of the Act for possessing 40 litres of I. D. liquor, considering a similar contention modified the sentence by imposing of fine of Rs. 2,000/- and the period already undergone in the jail as the substantive sentence. Keeping in view the submission of the petitioner regarding the young age and no past criminal record, it is felt expedient in the interest of justice to modify the sentence to the extent that petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court undertaking therein not to commit any other crime of similar type and to maintain peace and good behaviour for a period of two years. In the event of default or violation of any of the condition he shall serve the sentence as imposed by the Magistrate and not by the Addl. Sessions Judge. In the event of non-payment of fine as aforesaid the default sentence as imposed by the trial Court be executed inasmuch as the appellate Court without assigning any reason reduced the sentence which is not permissible under law. In the event of executing the bond in the above manner petitioner shall remain under the supervision of the officer appointed under Probation of Offenders' Act. Petitioner need not serve the substantive sentence if he shall abide by the conditions of the bond for a period of two years. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the impugned conviction order is confirmed but the sentence be served in the aforesaid modified manner. The revision be disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly. .