JUDGMENT This is an appeal by the State against an order of acquittal. The accused was charged under sections 51(a) and 54 of the Travancore Abkari Regulation (Regulation IV of 1073) for having been found in possession of seven measures of fermented toddy (the quantity is in excess of the quantity prescribed by the Government) and 48 ozs. of illicit arrack. The illicit arrack was found placed inside the kitchen and the toddy was found in a mud pot hidden in the compound at a place fifty feet from the house of the accused. P.W. 1, the Excise Inspector of the Poonjar Range who effected the search and the recovery as well as P.W. 4 the Preventive Officer who was present at the time of the search gave evidence that the illicit arrack was found in the north-eastern corner of the kitchen and that the fermented toddy was found in a pot which was covered up with earth at a place about fifty feet from the house. Besides these, two bottles with some traces of illicit arrack were also recovered from a wall-almirah in the kitchen. P.W. 1 gave evidence that the permissible quantity of toddy which one could possess without licence is 1½ Eds., that is, three bottles whereas the quantity that was found in M.O. II pot was 5 Eds. P.W. 1 had eighteen years’ experience in the Excise Department and he gave evidence that he found it to be illicit arrack by smelling and tasting it. P.W. 4 also said that he has worked in a distillery for some time and from his experience he could say by the taste whether it is illicit arrack or not and that on tasting the arrack that was found in the house he found it to be illicit arrack. The recovery mahazar was attested by two witnesses who were examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3. Though they admitted having signed the mahazar and seen the jar with the arrack and the drawing up of the mahazar by P.W.1, they denied having actually witnessed the recovery of the arrack and toddy. According to them they had gone over to the place only when the mahazar was being written. They had to be declared hostile and cross-examined and their cross-examination indicates that they were consciously giving such a version with a view to helping the accused. According to them they had gone over to the place only when the mahazar was being written. They had to be declared hostile and cross-examined and their cross-examination indicates that they were consciously giving such a version with a view to helping the accused. The accused when questioned pointedly about the prosecution evidence regarding the recovery of the illicit arrack and the toddy only said that they were not recovered from his house The cross-examination of the witnesses would also indicate that the attempt of the accused was to make out that he was not living in the house. P.W. 1 is definite that the accused was living in that house with his wife and children. The mahazar is also attested by the accused. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that there is no reliable evidence for finding that what was recovered was illicit arrack and toddy. According to the Magistrate since no attempt was made to have the toddy and arrack chemically analysed it is not possible to find that they are illicit arrack and toddy. It was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the failure to have the contents of the jar and the mud pot examined by a Public Analyst is not fatal to the prosecution case and that the Court below ought to have found that P.Ws.1 and 4 the Excise Officers are competent to testify whether the substance recovered was illicit arrack and toddy. I think there is considerable force in this objection. There is no provision in the Abkari Act or the rules that the liquor should be sent for chemical analysis. The judicial opinion also appears to be that the Excise Officers may be considered as experts on the question whether a certain liquid is illicit liquor or not At the same time the authorities are clear that before the officer's opinion is accepted the Court should ascertain the grounds on which his opinion is based so as to test it. In Ramkaransing v. Emperor A.I.R. 1935 Nag. In Ramkaransing v. Emperor A.I.R. 1935 Nag. 13, Gruer, A. J. C. held: “No doubt the Excise Sub-Inspector is an expert in his own department, and is able to distinguish liquors, but the Court should under section 51 ascertain the grounds on which his opinion is based, so as to test it.” The same view was taken by the Madras High Court in In re, Rajabather A.I.R. 1959 Mad. 450. There, the question was whether the “wash” that was seized would constitute wash for illicit distillation. In reply to the contention that the wash should be sent for chemical analysis for deciding the question, Ramaswami, J., observed. “The contention that it must be sent to chemical examiner has to be rejected out of hand as wholly impracticable. It would bring the working of the Madras Prohibition Act to a standstill and thereby defeat the most beneficent measure enacted in the interests of the people under the aegis of the Father of the Nation. The Prohibition Officers can legitimately be considered as experts and their evidence regarding wash may be accepted as expert testimony and it is only when they feel baffled the aid of the chemical examiner need be resorted to.” In Gobardhan v. The State A.I.R. 1959 All. 53 following Ramkaransingh v. Emperor A.I.R. 1935 Nag. 13 and an earlier decision of the Court in Mt. Titli v. Alfred Robert Jones A.I.R. 1934 All. 173, it was held that: “An Excise Inspector is an expert on the question whether a certain liquid is illicit liquor or not. But before he is in a position to give such an opinion as an expert he has to examine it and has also to furnish the data on which his opinion is vested. His bald statement that the contents of bottles were illicit liquor is not sufficient to prove that fact”. But before he is in a position to give such an opinion as an expert he has to examine it and has also to furnish the data on which his opinion is vested. His bald statement that the contents of bottles were illicit liquor is not sufficient to prove that fact”. In a recent decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in Paltu v. State of M.P. A.I.R. 1961 M.P. 5 it was held that: “Though the Excise Inspectors may betreated as experts in their own branch and may be able to distinguish liquors, it is the duty of the Court to ascertain from them the reason; on which their opinion is based in order that the Court may come to its own conclusion as to the correctness of otherwise or the opinion given by them.” In this case apart from the witnesses’ statement that they tasted and smelt the liquor and found that it is illicit liquor they did not state the grounds on which they based their opinion and how they distinguished arrack from illicitly distilled arrack nor did the Court make an attempt to test the correctness of the opinion given by the witnesses by ascertaining the grounds. It is true that the witnesses were nor further cross-examined about the correctness of the opinion they gave. However in the absence of any data to test the correctness of the opinion it may not be proper to find on their evidence that the arrack recovered was illicitly distilled. However there is no harm in accepting the evidence of the officers when they say that the substance recovered were toddy and arrack as their experience can tell them and that without any difficulty and there is no need to probe into the matter further. It is also well proved and not disputed that the toddy and arrack recovered was in excess of the prescribed quantity and as already noted there is enough evidence to show that the liquor was recovered from the accused's possession. The accused is therefore guilty of having been in possession of liquor above the permissible quantity. The order of acquittal is clearly unsustainable and must be vacated. In the result the order of acquittal is set aside and the accused is convicted under section 51(a) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. The order of acquittal is clearly unsustainable and must be vacated. In the result the order of acquittal is set aside and the accused is convicted under section 51(a) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. M.C.M.-----Appeal allowed.