JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 2. By way of this appeal filed under Section 378(iii) & (i) Cr.P.C., the State of Rajasthan seeks to assail the judgment dated 11.12.1989 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Siwana in Cr. Case No. 85/85 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused persons from the charge under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 3. Facts in brief are that Inspector Excise Circle, Balotra claims to have recovered 220 bottles of country made liquor from a Jonga Jeep bearing no. RJC-2923 being driven by Magsingh with Hadman & Jhammatmal sitting along side him. The bottles containing liquor were seized and F.I.R. No. 54 dated 29.1.1985 was registered. The Excise Officer collected samples only from 11 out of the total 220 bottles seized by him and forwarded the same for chemical examination. Analysis report Ex.P-7 was received as per which all the eleven samples answered the test of liquor in positive. The trial court proceeded to acquit the accused holding that the collection of samples from 11 out of 220 bottles could only lead to an inference that 11 bottles contained liquor. The accused could not be held guilty for the remainder of the liquor bottles as the chemical examiner's report was not covering the remaining bottles. For reaching to this conclusion, the trial court relied upon the Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shanker v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1985 WLN (UC)- 291. 4. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid judgment I am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court that the prosecution failed to prove that all the 220 bottles recovered from the possession pf the accused were containing liquor. If at all the prosecution was desirous of proving the fact that each of the recovered bottles contained contraband excisable article then the seizure officer should have either collected a representative sample or should have taken samples from each of the suspect recovered bottles. If at all the prosecution was desirous of proving the fact that each of the recovered bottles contained contraband excisable article then the seizure officer should have either collected a representative sample or should have taken samples from each of the suspect recovered bottles. This Court has clearly held in the case of Shanker v. State (supra) as well as the judgment rendered in the case of Panna Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1984 WLN(UC)-168 that sample should be collected from each of the bottles allegedly containing contraband if the charge is to be proved for the entire quantity. Indisputably the three accused apprehended by the Excise Inspector did not require any licence for possessing keep 11 bottles of liquor which was within the permissible quantity. As such the trial court committed no error in acquitting the accused. The impugned judgment is perfectly legal and justified and does not require any interference in this appeal preferred by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused party. 5. As an upshot of the above discussion, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 11.12.1989 is upheld and the instant appeal preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittal of the respondents is dismissed as being devoid of merit.