Order.- The petitioner was convicted by the II Additional First Class Magistrate, Gulbarga, under section 4 (a) of the Hyderabad Intoxicating Drugs Act read with section 7 of the said Act, and his conviction and sentence were confirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge at Gulbarga. In this revision petition, the points raised before me are that the prosecution did not prove by convincing and cogent evidence that the alleged article that was seized, was found in the possession of the petitioner and that there is no satisfactory evidence that the article was proved to be Ganja. Both the Courts below have relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5. P.W. 1 was working as a Railway Constable in Gulbarga Railway Station on 3rd June, 1965. His evidence is that at about 3 a.m. on that day, the petitioner alighted from Secunderabad-Bombay Express and was proceeding to the Tonga Stand. On suspicion, he stopped him and found in his possession the hold-all M.O. 1. As some smell was emanating from M.O. 1, he suspected that it might contain some prohibited article. Therefore, he took the petitioner to the Railway Station and produced him before P.W. 2, who was then working as Head Constable. These two witnesses have stated that, in the presence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 who were secured, the hold-?.ll was opened, which contained 9 and odd Kilos of Ganja. Accordingly, a Mahazar, Exhibit P-2, was written. Thereafter, the petitioner was produced before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Wadi, who in turn, referred the matter to the Excise Inspector, P.W. 5, who challenged the petitioner under sections 4 (a) and {b) read with section 7 of the Hyderabad Intoxicating Drugs Act. P.W. 3, who is a resident of Gulbarga, has not supported the prosecution case. He denied that Ganja was seized from the possession of the petitioner at Gulbarga. Therefore the prosecution treated him as hostile. P.W. 4, who is a resident of Gulbarga, has stated that he went to the Out-post at 7-30 a.m. and he was asked to sign the panchanama and accordingly he signed it. From his evidence it is clear that by the time he went to the Out-post, the hold-all had been seized by P.Ws. 1 and 2. He does not say that Ganja had been seized from the possession of the petitioner. The evidence of P.Ws. From his evidence it is clear that by the time he went to the Out-post, the hold-all had been seized by P.Ws. 1 and 2. He does not say that Ganja had been seized from the possession of the petitioner. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is that at 3 a.m. they seized the Ganja from the petitioner and that is also the recital in the Mahazar, Exhibit P-2. But that evidence is contradicted by P.Ws. 3 and 4. It is obvious that an attempt has been made to show that the article in question was seized from the possession of the petitioner in the presence of two independent witnesses. It is therefore unsafe to act upon the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 2 against whom the petitioner has suggested ill-will. Mr. Subbiah, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that even assuming that the article produced before Court, was seized from the possession of the petitioner, the prosecution have not proved that that article was Ganja. The prosecution have mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W. 5, who has challenged the petitioner in this case. His evidence is that on 21st June, 1965, he received 10 packets. He examined them and came to the conclusion by its appearance and smell that it was Ganja. He has admitted in cross-examination that the packets he received from the police had not been sealed. According to him, the packets were kept open. By the time he received these packets, more than 15 days had elapsed and during that period these packets had remained open. It is not the case of the prosecution that these packets, when seized, had been sealed. It is, therefore, urged by Mr. Subbiah that the possibility of some other article being introduced is not ruled out. There is considerable force in this contention. That apart, from the evidence of P.W. 5 it is unsafe to hold that the article examined by him was Ganja. In this connection, my attention was invited to the decision In re, Madiga Boosenna and others1. Subbiah that the possibility of some other article being introduced is not ruled out. There is considerable force in this contention. That apart, from the evidence of P.W. 5 it is unsafe to hold that the article examined by him was Ganja. In this connection, my attention was invited to the decision In re, Madiga Boosenna and others1. Therein it has been held: “When scientific methods are available to prove the fact of alcoholic content of an article, the prohibition officers should not be allowed to confine proof of such an article by their mere oral statements, because the primary duty of the prosecution is to exclude every possibility of a doubt or suspicion before they ask for the conviction of a person charged under the Act. The smell of liquor is not sufficient to raise a presumption against a person charged for an offence under the Act, The prosecution when they seize the arrack should get it examined by the Chemical Examiner. They cannot be allowed to adopt an easier course of examining its own officers to prove the contents of the tins only by smell. If this is to be accepted as a general rule, it would be giving a very large latitude to the prohibition officers to prove alcoholic content of any prohibited article or drug under the Act by mere smell”. The reasons given by P.W. 5 for coming to the conclusion that the article seized was Ganja are not sufficient to hold that in fact it was Ganja. The mere fact that the article smelled like Ganja is wholly insufficient to come to the conclusion that the article in question was Ganja. In these circumstances, the prosecution have failed to prove satisfactorily that the article seized is Ganja. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. If the fine has been paid, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner. The bail bonds are hereby cancelled. S.V.S. ----- Revision Petition allowed.