JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner should thank his stars because when the offence was committed the N.D.RS. Act was not in force. 2. Petitioner Chokha Ram was convicted by Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Deogarh for offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act, 1878 and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo nine months' simple imprisonment. On appeal the conviction and sentence were confirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand vide his judgment dated 2.5.1990. Aggrieved by this conviction and sentence he preferred this revision. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecution at length and have gone through the record. 4. Briefly stated, on 10.8.1981 Station House Officer Asfaq Ahmed and Sub-Inspector Jawahar Singh, who were posted at police station, Deogarh, went to investigate a case to out post Baggar. A secret information was received by them that a person wearing dress like a Vishnoi was taking rest on the national high way near village Kundeli. He was having a cycle which contains a bag and there was possibility of opium as its content. Asfaq Ahmed Station House Officer alongwith other police officials reached at this place. Accused petitioner has coming driving a cycle and when he saw the policewalas he turned. But the police caught hold to him. Interrogation was made from him and he disclosed that his name was Chokha Ram. There were two bags hanging on the handle of the cycle. They contained opium. It was tasted by police and motbirs and was also smelled and it was found to be opium. The opium weighed 10 kg. in one bag and 71/2 kg. in other bag. Thus 171/2 kg. of opium was recovered from the accused petitioner. Samples of 30 grams of opium was taken from each of the bags and they were sealed. Site plan was also prepared. Report was registered at police station Deogarh. During investigation samples were sent to the laboratory and it was found to be opium. After investigation samples were sent to the laboratory and it was found to be opium. After investigation challan was submitted to the learned Magistrate who framed relevant charge against the accused petitioner and after recording evidence, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. On appeal the same was maintained. Hence this revision. 5. After investigation samples were sent to the laboratory and it was found to be opium. After investigation challan was submitted to the learned Magistrate who framed relevant charge against the accused petitioner and after recording evidence, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as stated above. On appeal the same was maintained. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to carry me through the whole evidence in this case which was once appreciated by the learned Magistrate and then reappreciated by learned Sessions Judge. But when his attention was drawn to State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri etc., JT 1999(1) SC 456 , he confined himself to show the glaring features in this case. In the said citation it has been held that the revisional powers of the High Court cannot be equated with the power of an Appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciated the evidence and come to its own finding on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner first submitted that when the process of sealing was doubtful, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. Citing Gopal v. State, 1988 Cr.LR (Raj.) 697 , which has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court, he built the argument that sealing of the sample was not proper. In the case in hand learned sessions Judge found that it was not satisfactorily explained as to where the samples remained from 10.8.1981 to 9.9.1981 and then from 10.9.1981 to 19.9.1981. He also found that weight of the samples of opium which reached to the laboratory was different than what was recorded when samples were taken. Thus according to him it was not proved beyond doubt that the samples remained intact. If this is the position then what is the other evidence against the accused petitioner? 7. I find from the recovery memo Ex.P/2 that the contents of bags of the petitioner were not only seen by the police officials or smelt or tasted, but it was so done by motbirs. Jawahar Singh A.S.I. PW. If this is the position then what is the other evidence against the accused petitioner? 7. I find from the recovery memo Ex.P/2 that the contents of bags of the petitioner were not only seen by the police officials or smelt or tasted, but it was so done by motbirs. Jawahar Singh A.S.I. PW. 2 has stated that he is Rajpur by caste and in his community opium is consumed at ceremonial occasions, therefore, he identifies the opium. A judgment of the Supreme Court has been cited by the learned Appellate Judge in which it was held that opium has a special smell and taste and the same can be identified this way. Rajasthan High Court in 1977 WLN 99 and 1983 Cr.LR (Raj.) 321, has also held that opium can be identified by its special smell and its form. Statement of Jawahar Singh has been discussed by learned Appellate Judge in detail in order to arrive that the petitioner was carrying opium which was identified by the witnesses. In view of this matter the argument of the learned counsel that the samples did not remain intact, hardly matters because it was proved beyond doubt that the petitioner was keeping the opium with him when he was caught by the police. The opium was recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner at a open place before motbirs and the learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have appreciated and reappreciated that evidence of all the witnesses who have proved that the accused petitioner was found in possession of the opium. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited Jassa Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 (1) RCD 162 (Raj.) and submitted that smelling and tasting of the material to prove that recovered material was opium is not sufficient. In the facts and circumstances of that case when there was oral testimony of Bhopal Singh, Narcotics Inspector, it did not conclusively prove that the material recovered from the possession of the accused was opium. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the evidence is not vague rather witnesses have stated that they found opium in possession of the petitioner. Learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have found it proved that the opium weighing 171/2 kg. was recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the evidence is not vague rather witnesses have stated that they found opium in possession of the petitioner. Learned Trial Court as well as Appellate Court have found it proved that the opium weighing 171/2 kg. was recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner. According to Section 4 of the Opium Act, 1878 no one shall possess opium and if he does so he shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years with or without fine as per provisions of Section 9 of the said Act. The petitioner did not have any licence and he has definitely contravened the provisions of Opium Act and has been rightly convicted for offence under Section 4/9 of the Opium Act. 9. So far as sentence is concerned, looking to the quantity of opium sentence cannot be said to be excessive. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case I do not fine any force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is on bail. He shall surrender before learned trial Magistrate who shall send him to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence.Revision petition dismissed. *******