ORDER
In both those appeals the appellant in each of the cases has been convicted under Section 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 for having been found to be in possession of the intoxicant contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The conviction recorded by the Magistrate has been upheld in appeal and also in revision by the High Court. 2. The Counsel for the appellant, however, wanted to raise a contention that the entire proceeding is vitiated as the officer, who investigated into the offence, did not have the authority in question. This point has not been urged in the forums below and we find that under Section 77(2) of the Act, the State Government is empowered to issue notification authorising different categories of officers for conducting investigation in respect of different offences. Since the point in question had not been raised in forums below, we cannot entertain and decide as to whether a particular officer who has investigated into an offence, did have the authority to investigate or not. The learned Counsel for the appellant also raised a contention that the possession of the accused is not one of conscious possession. The question whether the intoxicant was recovered from the possession of the accused is a question of fact and when all the forums below have concurrently recorded a finding that the accused was in possession of the same, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the same. Another contention that had been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that there had been no proper chemical test to identify the substance to be an I.D. liquor. This is factually incorrect, inasmuch as several tests had been held and that apart, even the Excise Authority by mere smell would be competent to decide whether the article is a liquor or not. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any merit in any of these appeals. The same are dismissed accordingly. Appeals dismissed.