JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - The accused-petitioner faced the trial for the offence u/s 47(f) of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (in short, 'the Act') For being in illegal possession of 480 kgs. of molasses mixed wash in 7 pitchers in fermented condition which had been kept for distillation of I.D. liquor. The said articles were seized by p. w. 3, the Excise Sub-Inspector, Berhampur on 31-3-1987 while on duty in Taratareni festival. According to the prosecution the aforesaid articles were seized from the house of the accused in presence of p. ws. 1 and 2, two independent witnesses of the locality besides p. w. 4 who was the A.S. I., E.I. B., Berhampur. At the time of trial except providing their signatures in the seizure list Ext. l.P. ws. 1 and 2 did not state anything regarding possession and recovery of the said articles from the possession of the accused. However, p. ws. 3 and 4 convicted the accused-petitioner and sentenced her to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In appeal, learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur concurred with the findings on fact recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal uphelding the conviction and sentence. Thus the accused has preferred this revision challenging the aforesaid conviction order. 2. The same point as were canvassed before the courts below also been canvassed in this revision. The scope of interference by the revisional court is limited to the extent that in the absence of any illegality or perversity in appreciation of such facts and evidence, revisional court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and appellate courts. 3. In challenging the order of conviction learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner argued that p. ws. 1 and 2 do not support the prosecution and in the absence of independent corroboration the contradictory evidence of p. ws. 3 and 4 should not have been relied upon by the courts below. It was pointed out that in the evidence of p. w. 3 he has stated that the six pitchers with wash was recovered from the backside room of the accused whereas p. w.4 has stated that it was recovered from the middle room. On perusal of the evidence of p. ws. It was pointed out that in the evidence of p. w. 3 he has stated that the six pitchers with wash was recovered from the backside room of the accused whereas p. w.4 has stated that it was recovered from the middle room. On perusal of the evidence of p. ws. 3 and 4 it does not appear therein as to totally how many rooms were there in the house of the accused. It is also not clearly brought out from the mouth of p. w. 3 if the backside room means the last room of the house. P. w. 4 in his evidence has stated that there was a cow-shed behind the room from which the pitchers were found and seized. Therefore, the self-same room could have been described in the aforesaid different manner by p. ws. 3 and 4. Apart from that the occurrence of search and seizure took place on 31-3-1987 and p. w. 3 was examined on 1-7-1993 and p. w.4 was examined on 28-2-1994. Therefore, allowances can be granted to the lapse of memory in remembering topography and the detailed situation of the house. Therefore, the aforesaid contradictions are neither vital nor material. 4. P. ws. 1 and 2 no doubt have not stated regarding the recovery of articles from the possession of the accused, but they simply proved their signatures in the seizure list. Ext. 1. P. w. 1 in cross-examination has said that he had seen no liquor and the cross-examination of p. w. 2 was declined. Under such circumstance, the evidence of p. w. 1 and 2 may not be of much help to the prosecution, but certainly it is not of any advantage to the accused inasmuch as there is nothing in their evidence which goes to disprove the statement of p. ws. 3 and 4 who are two official witnesses having no enemity or motive to falsely implicate the accused. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Madan Singh v. State of Rajsthan: A.I. Rule 1978 S.C. 1511 if the evidence of Investigating Officer who recovered the material object is convincing the evidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground that seizure witnesses do not support the prosecution version. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Subodh Sethi and Anr. v. State of Orissa, Vol. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Subodh Sethi and Anr. v. State of Orissa, Vol. 73 (1992) C.L. T. 28. In that case it has been held by this Court that conviction can be maintained on the basis of evidence of departmental Officers if it is true and trustworthy and examination of independent witnesses is a requirement of caution and not mandatory requirement. 5. Perusal of the evidence in the lower court record the aforesaid discussions and the principles noted as above lives no room for doubt that the evidence of p. ws 3 and 4 were correctly and properly assessed and accepted and in that connection there has been no illegality or perversity committed by the trial or the appellate court. Hence, there is nothing to interfere with that finding on fact that evidence of p. ws. 3 and 4 is reliable and acceptable which proves the factum of possession and recovery of the aforesaid articles from the Petitioner. 6. It was then argued that no chemical analysis of the seized wash was made and the evidence of p.w. 3 is not satisfactory to derive a conclusion that the wash had been kept for the purpose of preparation of liquor. In that context, Petitioner has relied upon the cases of Suma Das v. State of Orissa: (1993) 6 O.C. R.612 and Sadasiv Sahu v. State of Orissa: Vol. 73 (1992) C.L. T. 697. It may be noted here that the aforesaid two citations are relating to seizure of I.D. liquor where blue litmus paper test and hydrometer test had been done. In the case of Suma Das (supra) this Court has held that litmus paper and hydrometer test along with the experience of the officer if found satisfactory, that can be accepted, but chemical analysis of the seized liquor is a matter of surest test. As has been noted above, the present case relates to seizure of molasses mixed formented wash of huge quantity i. e. 480 kgs, and it is not a case of I.D. liquor. As has been noted above, the present case relates to seizure of molasses mixed formented wash of huge quantity i. e. 480 kgs, and it is not a case of I.D. liquor. In addition to that p. w. 3 has categorical stated in his evidence that from his 22 years of experience in the department and the knowledge which he has derived from the departmental training relating to the distilleries was sufficient enough to formulate the opinion that the said fermented wash had been kept by the accused for preparation of I.D. liquor. The aforesaid evidence of p. w. 3 and the corroborative evidence of p. w. 4 has not been successfully challenged. Thus, such evidence proves in record that fermented wash had been kept by the Petitioner for preparation of I.D. liquor. 7. It was further argued that. the prosecution has not been able to prove that Petitioner was in conscious possession of the seized articles. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner being a lady living in that house with her husband and other inmates and when the p. ws. 3 and 4 did not state in their evidence that it was found from the conscious and exclusive possession of the Petitioner, the benefit arising out of such evidence and circumstance should have been granted in favour of the Petitioner and she should have been acquited. In support of his argument that passive possession does not constitute an offence unless it is a conscious and Physical possession, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a series of decisions as noted herewith. He relied upon the cases of Urmila Sahoo v. State of Orissa: 1993 (1) O.L.R. 225 , In re, Wahib Basha,: AIR 1961 Madras 162 Soba Naikani v. State of Orissa: (1996) 11 O.C.R. 393. Kasinath Behera v. State of Orissa: 1985 (II) O.L. Rule 508, State v. Nilakantha Sahu and Anr.: Vol. 31 (1965) C.L. T. 990 and State v. Traimbaklal Meheta and Anr.: Vol. 40 (1974) C.L.T. 1040. Kasinath Behera v. State of Orissa: 1985 (II) O.L. Rule 508, State v. Nilakantha Sahu and Anr.: Vol. 31 (1965) C.L. T. 990 and State v. Traimbaklal Meheta and Anr.: Vol. 40 (1974) C.L.T. 1040. Facts and evidence in all the above cited cases are distinguished from the facts and evidence of the present case inasmuch as in all such cases evidence was available that others were residing in the searched house or the place or premises; from which the articles were recovered so as to give rise to a reasonable inference that the possession of the seized articles could not have been exclusively attributed to the accused. In that context, the authorities cited above have made distinction between passive possession and conscious possession and making the factum of conscious possession culpable under law whereas passive possession as not to be an offence. But in the case at hand, p. ws. 3 and 4 have specifically stated in their evidence that the house of the accused was searched in presence of the accused and the fermented wash was seized. The accused has not brought out any statement from their mouth to show or suggest that she was not residing alone in that house or that somebody else was also staying in that house. Under such circumstance, the positive evidence of prosecution cannot be brushed aside to give a push to the theoritical proposition projected by the Petitioner. The evidence in record sufficiently proves that the seized articles were recovered from the possession of the accused and in the absence of any material to the contrary it was rightly and validly held by the courts below that it was recovered from her exclusive possession. Under such circumstance that finding of fact is also not liable to be disturbed. 8. The aforesaid discussion and findings negatives the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner and supporting the impugned findings and the conviction order recorded by the courts below. Since the accused-petitioner is an old lady of above 60 years of age, keeping in view the fact that there was no previous conviction of the Petitioner for a same or similar offence, the benefit of P.O. Act can be extended in her favour though normally such a benefit should not be extended in the absence of exceptional circumstances because of the nature of the offence and its reflection on the society at large. Thus, keeping in view record of no previous conviction and her old age this Court modifies the sentence to the extent that instead of fine of Rs. 500/- she shall pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and so far as the substantive sentence of imprisonment is concerned that shall remain suspended for a period of two years if the Petitioner shall execute a bond u/s 4 of the Probation of Offender's Act for Rs. 5,000/- with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court undertaking therein not to commit any other crime muchless any crime or criminal activities in contravention of the provisions of the Act and shall keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years. In the event of executing such bond, Petitioner shall remain under active supervision of the concerned officers under the P.O. Act. If the Petitioner shall execute the bond and shall abide by the terms and conditions for a period of two years then she shall not serve the sentence. In the event of violation of any of the terms and conditions during the period of probation upon receipt of such reports and findings such report to be true and trustworthy after enquiry by the Magistrate, the Petitioner may be asked to surrender to the bond and to serve the substantive sentence. 9. The revision is thus dismissed with modification of the sentence and implementation of the same in the aforesaid manner. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed