Excise evidence and statutory compliance: smell and litmus tests upheld for liquor identification, with no breach of custody requirements.

In excise prosecutions, seized liquor may be identified by reliable field tests such as smell and litmus tests where the officer's competence and the test results are not effectively challenged, and chemical examination is not invariably required. The report of the Excise Sub Inspector was accepted as competent opinion evidence, and the finding that the substance was country-made liquor was upheld. The Court also found no breach of the reporting and custody requirements under Sections 57 and 57-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915, noting that the seizure and sealed dispatch of the article satisfied the statutory safeguards. Revisional interference was declined because no legal infirmity or perversity was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether smell test and litmus test applied for identifying the seized substance as intoxicant was legal and proper; (ii) Whether Sections 57 and 57-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 were complied with.

Issue (i): Whether smell test and litmus test applied for identifying the seized substance as intoxicant was legal and proper.

Analysis: The seized liquor was examined by the Excise Sub Inspector, who used smell test and litmus test and reported it to be country made liquor falling within the meaning of intoxicant. The Court noted that the competence of the officer or the correctness of the test was not effectively challenged in cross-examination or before the appellate court. Relying on the principle that chemical examination is not invariably mandatory and that the nature of liquor may be established by other reliable tests and surrounding circumstances, the Court accepted the report and treated the officer as competent to give opinion evidence.

Conclusion: The identification of the seized liquor by smell test and litmus test was held to be legal and proper, and the finding against the applicant was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether Sections 57 and 57-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 were complied with.

Analysis: On the facts, the seizure was made by the Station House Officer, and the Court held that the objection based on Section 57-A had no application. The record also showed that the seized article was sent for examination in sealed condition, and no challenge had been raised at trial or in appeal regarding sealing or sampling. The Court therefore rejected the plea of non-compliance with the statutory reporting and custody requirements.

Conclusion: The Court held that there was no contravention of Sections 57 and 57-A of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence, holding that no jurisdictional or legal error was shown.

Ratio Decidendi: In excise prosecutions, liquor may be proved by reliable sensory and field tests where the evidence is otherwise credible, and revisional interference with concurrent factual findings is unwarranted absent legal infirmity or perversity.

---