CRIMINAL REVISION No.61 of 2002 ……………………… Against the judgment dated 26th of July,2000 Passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Cr.Appeal No.59 Of 1997/07 of 1998. …………………………… 1. SHEKH HASIM @ SHORI,son of Sk. Bulla 2. Sk. Abdul Gani,son of Sk.Sitab. Both of village-Chapara Bahash,P.S.- Sugauli,Dist.-East Champaran .. Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .. .. Opposite Party ……………………… For the Petitioners: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwari,APP ……………………… P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH Mandhata Singh,J.:- This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 26-07-2000 passed in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 1997/07 of 1998 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, by which he has affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15.07.1997 passed in Tr.no.163/1997, G.R.No.1598/1994 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Motihari. Prosecution case in brief is that while police party headed by Sipte Alam on 09.12.1994 was on patrolling duty received secret information about selling of illegal country made wine by both the petitioners. Their house was raided and from petitioner Shekh Hasim alias Shori 3½ litre in 2 five litre Jurking along with two glasses having smell of country made wine was recovered while from the house of petitioner no.2 Shekh Abdul Gani 3 litre country made wine was recovered in a 35 litre Jurking, that were seized. The case was registered, investigated and after trial both petitioners are convicted by the trial court which is confirmed in appeal passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari vide Cr.Appeal No.59 of 1997/07 of 1998. A single point has been raised to challenge the legality, correctness and propriety in the judgment and order of both the courts that any substance if recovered from petitioners’ house that should be examined to verify that the same was country made liquor, which has not been done, even then that has been accepted as country made wine. In this regard statement of P.W.4 is relevant. He is the Investigating Officer of the case. Matter was investigated by him. In chief examination itself he has stated that seized substance was got examined by the Excise Inspector and exhibited accordingly but the result of examination of Excise Inspector was ever produced in the case, if produced that is not available on record. 3 I am also of the opinion that examination of the seized substance was required towards which step was also taken by it (investigating agency) but no report is submitted and once prosecution itself is of the opinion that before coming to a conclusion about any material to be country made wine examination is necessary, it should be brought on record but no such report is on record, even then that has been accepted as country made wine which is wrong. Once it is doubted that seized substance is country made wine conviction for its manufacturing or having in possession is not justified but this much of the aspect has not been taken into consideration by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. Accordingly, judgment and order of the trial court as well as appellate court is set aside. Petitioners are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. In the result, this revision application is allowed. ( Mandhata Singh,J.) Patna High Court,Patna Dated the 30th of October,2009 A.H./N.A.F.R.