JUDGMENT 1. :- This criminal revision petition is directed against judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Alwar who upheld the judgment of the trial Court convicting the petitioner for offence under section 16/54(A) the Excise Act but reduced the sentence to four months' SI with fine of Rs. 100/- (in default 10 days' SI) from nine months' SI with a fine of Rs. 300/- in default two months SI. 2. Briefly stated facts leading to this revision petition are that on 3.5.1987 raid was conducted at the house of the petitioner during which the police in the presence of motbir witnesses searched he house and recovered 140-150 bottles of illicit liquor having been filled in three plastic jerry-can, from a room in his possession. After usual investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. The petitioner was charged for offence under Section 16/54(A) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, to which he denied and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as six witnesses. The petitioner was examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code but he did not adduce any evidence in defence. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court by its judgment dated 18.8.93 held the petitioner guilty and thereby convicted him under section 16/54 of the Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo nine months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 300/- (in default, 2 months' SI). Against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred criminal appeal before the appellate court, which under its judgment dated 25.1.94 upholding his conviction reduced the impugned sentence to four months' SI with a fine of Rs. 100/-. Hence this revision petition. 3. First contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution has failed to prove exclusive possession of the petitioner over the house from which the illicit liquor is alleged to have been recovered, because according to him, two real brothers were also having possession over that house. 100/-. Hence this revision petition. 3. First contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the prosecution has failed to prove exclusive possession of the petitioner over the house from which the illicit liquor is alleged to have been recovered, because according to him, two real brothers were also having possession over that house. Second contention is that sample of illicit liquor taken during the excise raid was sent for chemical examination after 20 days of the recovery which tends to disclose that the prosecution failed to prove that the seal of the sample remained in tact, inasmuch as two witnesses (Gopal Singh (PW1) & Bamboo (PW2) who were produced as independent ones have been declared hostile and that apart Ramavtar (PW4) recovery witness also failed to prove the recovery. Lastly the learned counsel urged that the courts below erred in not extending benefit of probation to the petitioner inasmuch as reasons assigned by the courts below are also not sustainable in law. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor while supporitng the concurrent findings of fact as to the guilt of the present petitioner contended that there are no contradiction or incongruities or error of jurisdiction so as to invoke revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused relevant evidence on record on the basis of which the impugned concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the courts below for holding the petitioner guilty for offence under section 16/54 of the Excise Act. Ramchandra Joshi (PW3) Excise Inspector, Ramavtar (PW4), and Ashok Kumar (PW6) are excise officials. There is no material on record muchless suggestion to these witnesses as to whether they were bearing any ill-will against the accused petitioner. There is no reason to ignore their statements moreso when the trial Court and the appellate Court have placed reliance on their testimony and have held that the accused was found in exclusive and conscious possession of the illicit liquor in question. There is no reason to ignore their statements moreso when the trial Court and the appellate Court have placed reliance on their testimony and have held that the accused was found in exclusive and conscious possession of the illicit liquor in question. Further the testimony of Ramchandra Joshi Excise Inspector (PW3) as to the exclusive possession of the house from where the illicit liquor in question was got recovered from the accused petitioner is fully corroborated by the evidence of Sarpanch Radheyshyam (PW5) who proved the endorsement marked G to H put by him on Ex.P.10 verifying exclusive possession and ownership of the accused over the rooms marked A, B & C in Ex.P.10. Ramchandra Joshi (PW3) and Ashok Kumar (PW6) have proved the recovery memo (Ex.P.1), Site plan (Ex.P.2), arrest memo (Ex.P.3). Similarly Ramchandra Joshi (PW3) and Ramavtar (PW4) have proved that the sample of illicit liquor in question remained in an intact sealed condition from the date of recovery till it was taken by Ramvtar (PW4) and delivered by him to the Excise Laboratory Udaipur. They have proved Ex.P.8 which also contained endorsement of Excise Laboratory at C to D and E to F which proved that the samples in question were in an intact sealed condition. FSL report (Ex.P.9) has been proved by Ramchandra Joshi (PW3) upon which he made endorsement. 6. In the instant case the carrier of the sample of illicit liquor to the Excise laboratory Udaipur was produced in evidence and who as discussed above has proved the sample having remained in an intact sealed condition when he received from Ramchandra Joshi and till he delivered the same to the Laboratory at Udaipur. Hence any chance of the sample in question having been allegedly tampered with at any stage does not arise and is altogether ruled out. Ramchandra Joshi (PW3) proved that the samples remained in his possession in an intact sealed condition till it was given to Ramavtar for being taken to the Laboratory at Udaipur. Merely because the motbir witnesses to the recovery and arrest memos have turned hostile the accused may be acquitted as they have not supported the Excise Inspector (Investigating Officer) whose evidence is sterling worth and suffers from no infirmity nor there is any illegality in the concurrent findings basing the conviction against the accused. Merely because the motbir witnesses to the recovery and arrest memos have turned hostile the accused may be acquitted as they have not supported the Excise Inspector (Investigating Officer) whose evidence is sterling worth and suffers from no infirmity nor there is any illegality in the concurrent findings basing the conviction against the accused. Similarly as sample of illicit liquor was sent to the Public Analyst (Excise Laboratory) Udaipur on 22.5.87, it creates doubt on the prosecution story, I do not find any substance in such contention because in the present case there has been concurrent finding on the evidence of the Excise Inspector that the recovered sample of illicit liquor was in his possession in a sealed condition vide Ex.P.8 and it had also been acknowldged by the Excise Laboratory in a sealed condition as was proved vide FSL report (Ex.P.9) so also oral evidence of Ramchandra Joshi (PW3) and Ramavtar (PW4). Their evidence has not at all been shaken by the defence in cross-examination. In the presence of unshaken testimony of these witnesses proving Ex.P.8 recovery memo pertaining to sample of illicit liquor, non-production of Malkhana register or its incharge in the evidence is not fatal to the prosecution. Similarly in presence of the evidence of sample carrier Ramavtar (PW4) it stood proved that he received sealed sample from Malkhana and accordingly he carried the same and delivered it in the excise laboratory Udaipur in a sealed condition as is evident from Ex.P.8. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decisions in Chinda Singh v. State (1991 RCrC 148) , Jaswant Singh v. State (1957 RLW 438) , Inder Singh v. State (1990 CrLR (Raj) 393) , Tarachand Vs.. State (1990 CrLR (Raj) 584) , Nanna v. State of Rajasthan (1998(1) WLN 55) , Sarjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan ( 1986 RLR 30 ) , Jangir Singh v. State (1989 RCrC 57) , Matu Singh v. State ( 1987(1) RLR 311 =1987 CrLR Raj. 569) , and Karan Singh v. State of Rajasthan ( 1987(2) WLN 434 ) . 8. 569) , and Karan Singh v. State of Rajasthan ( 1987(2) WLN 434 ) . 8. In Jamawant Singh v. State (supra) while upholding finding of two courts that the bottles said to be of illicit liquor were recovered from the house of the accused, but as regards Nal & Babri, this Court found that two motbirs had not said anything about their recovery inasmuch as three excise officials have contradicted each other on material particulars and so held that there was material discrepancy whether it was the accused who brought these articles himself or he gave information as a result whereof the recovery was made by the excise officials and accordingly recovery of "Nal" & "Babri" was held to be not sustainable and the conviction under section 54(d) for possessing apparatus for manufacturing excisable articles was not upheld. It was a case where in view of the contrary evidence of the prosecution being not based on any personal knowledge of any of the witnesses, from which the bottles were recovered was in the sole occupation of the accused and consequently accused was held not to be guilty of an excisable article to the illicit liquor. 9. In Chinda Singh v. State (supra) one bottle of illicit liquor was seized from common chowk in a house and samples were taken & sealed. There was no independent witness except Excise Officer & Excise Inspector because motbirs did not support the recovery therefore, this Court held that the finding regarding accepting the articles in possession of Chinda Singh was contrary to the facts on record and thereby the accused was acquitted. 10. In Inder Singh v. State (supra), incharge of Malkhana & Carrier of sample packet was not produced to show that seals were intact and Serologist report was not produced therefore recovery & its evidence was held to be not sufficient to connect the accused with crime. 11. In Tara Chand v. State (supra), there was nothing on record to point out as to where opium article was kept from the date of recovery till the date on which it was handed over to the carrier for being taken to the office of the chemical examiner, inasmuch as report of chemical examiner being not proved this court held that it cannot be said in which condition it reached there. It was a case where two motbirs have not supported the prosecution case about the reliance on the statement of investigating officer and constable. This Court further held that the accused cannot claim acquittal simply on the ground that the motbirs have not supported the investigating officer and if there are circumstances showing evidence of the investigating officer sterling worth and suffering from no infirmity, there is no illegality in basing conviction on such testimony as cases are not rare where mobtirs for some reasons or other oblige the accused. 12. In Nanu v. State of Rajasthan (supra), the only ground on which the trial court had declined to deal with the case of the offender under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was that he was found in possession of 140 bottles of illicit liquor and this Court therefore held that these reasons cannot be said to be 'special reasons' as contemplated by section 361 Criminal Procedure Code. This Court also held that in the absence of any material in respect of the character, age and antecedent of the offender, it will not be possible for the Court to refuse to deal with the case of the offender under section 4 of the Act or under section 361 Criminal Procedure Code which are mandatory. Similarly, in Matu Singh v. State and Magh Singh v. State (supra) this Court upholding the conviction under section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act ordered to release the accused on probation on the ground that it was their first offence. 13. In Jangir Singh v. State (supra), and Karam Singh v. State (supra), this Court while maintaining the conviction under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the accused, holding that there ws no previous conviction to the accused. 14. In view of the discussion and analysis made above, I am of the opinion that none of the decisions cited at the bar helps in any manner in advancing the case on behalf of the accused petitioner. The concurrent findings of fact based on well appreciation of the evidence recorded by two courts below deserve to be upheld as they do not warrant for invoking revisional jurisdiction or call for any interference by this Court. The concurrent findings of fact based on well appreciation of the evidence recorded by two courts below deserve to be upheld as they do not warrant for invoking revisional jurisdiction or call for any interference by this Court. In the instant case I do not find any material in respect of the character, age and antecedent of the offender (petitioner), therefore, it is not possible for this Court to deal with the case of the offender either under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act or under section 360 or 361 Criminal Procedure Code. 15. In the result, this criminal revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment dated 25.1.94 of the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar in Cr.Appeal No.38/93 partly modifying the judgment dated 18.8.93 of the AMJM No.1, Alwar in Cr.Case No. 155/88 while reducing the impugned sentence, are hereby affirmed. Since the impugned sentence of the petitioner had been suspended, the learned trial court is directed to get the accused petitioner arrested and send him to jail to serve out the impugned sentence in accordance with law. The petitioner will be entitled to the benefit of section 428, Criminal Procedure Code.Revision dismissed *******