JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - This is a revision against the orders of conviction and sentence passed u/s 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 11-1-91, the Sub-Inspector of Excise (p. w. 3) in course of his patrolling duty in Aul market along with an excise constable (p. w. 4) at about 1 p. m. found a plastic Jerry-can containing 10 liters of C.S. liquor and one glass tumbler from the temporary shed at the Aul market where the Petitioner was standing and after observing all the formalities, p. w. 3 seized the plastic Jerry-can and the glass tumbler and after performing Hydrometer and litmus paper tests came to the conclusion that the Jerry-can contains C.S. liquor. He prepared the seizure list in presence of independent witnesses and on completion of inquiry, prosecution report was submitted before the learned S.D. J.M., Kendrapara, to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined four witnesses including the S.I. of Excise and the excise constable and two seizure witnesses. The defense was completely denial. In the statement recorded u/s 323, Cr. P.C., it was stated that the accused was a man of village Giribandh few kilometers away from the place of seizure and the shed from where the alleged C.S. liquor was seized, does not belong to the accused Petitioner, but a case has been falsely foisted. In course of trial, p. ws. 1 and 2, the seizure witnesses turned hostile and they were cross-examined. 3. The learned S.D. J.M. relying on the evidence of p. ws. 3 and 4 convicted the Petitioner u/s 47(a) of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months. The Petitioner preferred an appeal which was heard by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara and the order of conviction and the sentence was confirmed. 4. Mr. A.K. Rao, learned Counsel for the accused Petitioner assails the orders of the learned courts below on the ground that the I.O. who had seized the illicit liquor from the shed, had not verified any document as to whether the said shed belongs to the accused-petitioner inasmuch as the seizure was made in absence of the Petitioner. 4. Mr. A.K. Rao, learned Counsel for the accused Petitioner assails the orders of the learned courts below on the ground that the I.O. who had seized the illicit liquor from the shed, had not verified any document as to whether the said shed belongs to the accused-petitioner inasmuch as the seizure was made in absence of the Petitioner. It is further submitted that in absence of a finding with regard to the ownership of the shed, the learned courts below could not have held the Petitioner guilty for the alleged offence. The evidence of p. w. 3 and p. w.4 are also challenged on the ground of inconsistency. The learned Counsel has referred to the decision in the case of Karpura Senapati Vs. State of Orissa, in support of his contention that the prosecution is required to prove that the intoxicant drug was in possession of the accused and then also the presumption of guilt can be attracted u/s 48 of the Act unless the accused is able to explain the validity of such possession in accordance with law. It appears from the impugned orders that the learned courts below have observed that the evidence of p. ws. 3 have not been challenged with regard to possession of liquor by the accused and its seizure. Similarly p. w. 4 who has described the fact of seizure of liquor from the possession of the accused, has also not been effectively cross-examined to shake his evidence. The learned courts below also took note of the evidence of p.ws 1 and 2 who have turned hostile, but had admitted their respective signatures on the seizure list. The evidence of p. ws. 3 and 4 therefore, clearly proves the seizure of C.S. liquor from the possession of the accused-petitioner from a thatched house in the hat {market}. 5. Having gone through the impugned orders and the evidence on record, I find no reason to interfere with the order of conviction. But, however, the contention of the learned Counsel with regard to the sentence needs consideration. Shri Rao strenuously contends that the alleged offence is of the year 1991 and in the meantime, 9 years have elapsed and therefore, no useful purpose will be served if the Petitioner is now asked to serve the sentence inasmuch as the Petitioner was already in custody for 20 days. 6. Shri Rao strenuously contends that the alleged offence is of the year 1991 and in the meantime, 9 years have elapsed and therefore, no useful purpose will be served if the Petitioner is now asked to serve the sentence inasmuch as the Petitioner was already in custody for 20 days. 6. In the circumstances, 1 am of the considered opinion that after lapse of about 9 years, no useful purpose will be served by asking the accused-petitioner to serve the sentence at the moment while he was already in custody for about 20 days. Therefore, while confirming the order of conviction passed against the accused-petitioner u/s 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, I sentence the Petitioner to a period already undergone in modification of the sentence passed by the court below. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed to the extent indicated above. Ordered accordingly. Final Result : Allowed