8. Ms. Anima Dei, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the conviction recorded against the petitioner cannot sustain the scrutiny of law on two counts. Firstly, as per the evidence of P.W.2, the seizure of the articles could not be proved on record because P.W.2 very specifically stated in the dock that he had no knowledge of seizure. However, the courts below have believed the seizure only on the basis of the admitted signature of P.W.2 in the seizure list. Secondly, it is apparent from the record that there is no scientific evidence placed on record to suggest that the articles seized are liquor. However, the courts below have accepted the testimony of P.W.3 that out of experience, P.W.3 has assessed the bottle on the basis of the label in the bottle that carries Rum and Beer. Therefore, the courts below have said that non-production of the chemical test report or any scientific evidence by the prosecution is not fatal. In that regard Ms. Dei relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 1993 (II) OLR 392, Suma
