Order.- The revision petitioner stands convicted by the Principal Sub-Magistrate, Calicut under section 8(1)(a)of the Prohibition Act, 1950 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The case against him was that he was found in possession of four grams of ganja when P.W. 1 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Calicut Town stopped and searched his person at about 7 p.m. on 30th March, 1963 near the first Railway Gate Calicut. He pleaded not guilty but was convicted and sentenced as noted above. His appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malappuram was also unsuccessful. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that prosecution has not proved that the substance recovered from the accused is ‘Ganja’. P.W. 1 gave evidence that a small paper packet recovered from the accused’s pocket contained a lump of ganja which he recognised by its characteristic smell. P.W. 2 a witness to the search and seizure also gave his opinion that the substance in the packet was ganja. Though both the witnesses claim to be familiar with ganja there is a significant contradiction between their opinions for whereas P.W. 2 would have it that ganja is ‘like leaves,‘P.W. 1 is sure that ganja is never seen as leaves. The learned defence Counsel argues that opinions of laymen like P.Ws. 1 and 2 cannot provide an adequate basis for a finding that the substance recovered was ganja. In this connection the learned Counsel brought to my notice the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Sreedharan1 wherein it was held that a Court cannot base a finding that a certain substance was liquor on the bald statement of a Police Inspector that it srnelled like liquor. According to the defence Counsel the principle of that decision applies to this case also. This is also conceded by the learned Prosecutor. In cases such as this where the mere possession of a substance constitutes an offence the Court should see that the identity of the substance is established beyond doubt. It should insist that the principle of law that the best evidence should be produced to prove a fact, is adhered to. As observed in In re Madiga Boosenna2. In cases such as this where the mere possession of a substance constitutes an offence the Court should see that the identity of the substance is established beyond doubt. It should insist that the principle of law that the best evidence should be produced to prove a fact, is adhered to. As observed in In re Madiga Boosenna2. “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 should 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.” It is seen (vide Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology-13th Edition-page 693) that microscopic examination as also chemical analysis could establish the identity of ganja beyond controversy and as such I feel that the best evidence to prove the fact that the substance recovered from the accused was ganja would have been a certificate to that effect from the Chemical Analyst. In the absence of such a certificate I do not think the conviction of the accused for the possession of ganja can be sustained. The Revision Petition is hence allowed and the conviction and sentence are set aside. The fine if realised will be refunded to the accused. M.C.M. ----- Petition allowed.