JUDGMENT : B.P. Das. J. 1. The petitioner has been convicted u/s 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo S.I. for one month more, by the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar. .Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Keonjhar who has confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Keonjhar. Hence, this revision. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is now aged about 75. He challenges the order of conviction on the ground that the trial court should not have relied upon the version of the official witnesses in absence of any independent witness corroborating the said version P.W. 2 who is an independent witness being a person of the locality denied the case of the prosecution in toto so far as recovery of I.D. liquor from the house of the petitioner is concerned. 3. The alleged occurrence took place on 30.1.1988 when the S.I. of Excise along with his staff went to Atopur for patrolling. After getting information that there were some stocks of iflicit liquor in the house of the accused, they made a search and seized a plastic jar containing 5 liters of I.D. liquor from his house. 4. The prosecution in order to prove the case examined altogether three witnesses. One witness was examined from the side of the defence. Out of the witnesses so examined by the prosecution, P.W. 3 is S.I. of Excise, P.W. 1 is A.S.I, of Excise and P.W. 2 is an outsider. 5. The plea of the accused was of complete denial. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions. One is that there is no corroborative evidence to the version of the official witnesses. Second is, in absence of any chemical analysis of the seized liquor, it is unsafe to base the conviction purely placing reliance on the litmus paper test and hydrometer test. Another objection is raised that the seized property has not been produced before the Court. One is that there is no corroborative evidence to the version of the official witnesses. Second is, in absence of any chemical analysis of the seized liquor, it is unsafe to base the conviction purely placing reliance on the litmus paper test and hydrometer test. Another objection is raised that the seized property has not been produced before the Court. Though all these questions were raised before the trial court, according to the petitioner, the same were not dealt with in their proper perspective and in terms of the judicial pronouncements on the subject in question, for which, the order of conviction is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the findings recorded by both the courts below should not be disturbed by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. It is also submitted that it is not required to undertake the Chemical analysis of seized materials in every case. In the present case, the Excise Sub-Inspector in his evidence has stated that he had undergone distillery training and from his 26 years of experience, he could know that the seized article was I.D. Liquor. 8. In this case, P.W. 2 is an independent witness. He has stated that the Excise Officers had not seized any material in his presence. That apart, P.W. 1, who is the SJ. of Excise, in his deposition has stated that they got information that accused was in possession of I.D. liquor in his house. He made a raid of the residential premises of the accused and seized a plastic jar containing 5 liters of I.D. liquor from that house in presence of witnesses. After seizure, the same was tested with blue litmus paper, which turned red. The S.I. of Excise also tested the same in hydrometer and the strength became 71.9? U.P. P.W. 2, who is the seizure witness, has categorically denied the aforesaid fact. P.Ws. 1 and 3 though in their evidence stated that the liquor was seized in presence of witnesses, but except P.W. 2 no other witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W. 3 in his evidence has categorically stated that there are two rooms in that house and that he prepared the seizure list in the kitchen room, the place from where the said liquor was seized. It is also an admitted fact that the liquor was not sent for chemical examination. P.W. 3 in his evidence has categorically stated that there are two rooms in that house and that he prepared the seizure list in the kitchen room, the place from where the said liquor was seized. It is also an admitted fact that the liquor was not sent for chemical examination. Learned counsel for the State submits that the findings of the courts below having been arrived at after thorough scanning of the evidence on record, this court in its revisional jurisdiction should not interfere with the same. But in the present case, as I find, the trial court simply relied upon the version of the official witnesses without going through the judicial pronouncements on the subject and also failed to apply its independent mind by not analysing the evidence properly. Another aspect was totally forgotten and was absolutely not looked into by the trial court as well as by the appellate court that neither the liquor so seized was produced before the Court nor was it sent for chemical examination. The reason for non-production of liquor, as ascribed by P.W. 3, is that the same could not be produced due to transfer of the officer in the meantime The reason is not cogent and cannot be accepted. That apart, there is no explanation as to why the seized article was not sent for chemical examination. Added to that, the independent witness has not supported the seizure. In this regard, my attention was drawn to the decisions of this Court in Biswanath Sahu v. State of Orissa, (1990) 3 OCR 248, Kodanda Dehuri v. State of Orissa, (1988)1 OCR 287, and Bhajana Sahu v. State of Orissa, (1989) 1 OLR 291, wherein it has been held that when the independent witnesses do not support the seizure and the liquor is not produced, it would not be proper for convicting the accused. 9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, relied upon a decision in Laxmidhar Behera v. State of Orissa (1999) 16 OCR 185, wherein this court held that though chemical test is the surest test, it cannot be laid down that in the absence of a chemical test, other tests like litmus paper test, hydrometer test or opinion of an expert would not be sufficient. So, the objection raised on the ground of absence of chemical test is not sustainable. So, the objection raised on the ground of absence of chemical test is not sustainable. It was, however, observed in the aforesaid decision that litmus paper test can merely indicate as to whether the liquor is acidic or not. 10. In the present case, P.W. 3 has merely stated that the liquor so seized was tested with blue litmus paper which turned red and on hydrometer test, the strength became 71.9? U.P. P.W. 3 has not stated anything except the density of the liquor. 11. Keeping the ratio of the decisions aforesaid in mind, I find that in the present case, the independent witness did not corroborate the testimony of the excise officers regarding seizure, and the liquor alleged to have been seized was not produced before the trial court, I am, therefore, of the opinion that the evidence on record is not sufficient for convicting the accused of the aforesaid charge. 12. In the result, the revision is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is set aside. Final Result : Allowed