JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is preferred against the judgment dated 27.11.1975 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar upholding the conviction of the accused under section 54A of the Excise Act. 2. The facts briefly stated are that on 10.11.1971 Anupsingh was selling illicit liquor at his quarter. On this information Shri Tribhuwan Singh S. I. went to quarter No. 189 at 6.25 p. m. and took search of the quarter which belonged to the petitioner who happened to be police constable. It is alleged that in the verandah which was behind the room in quarter No. 189, one bladder and a bottle containing illicit liquor was found. The sample of liquor on examination was found to be illicit. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner the accused was challaned. 3. Before the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor are noticed a few facts which does not appear to be in dispute may be stated. (i) That the petitioner was a police constable and was at relevant time posted and living at Hanumangarh and came to Ganganagar od some Government duty on the date of incident, (ii) The place from where the illicit liquor was recovered was a verandah which was accessible to everyone, i. e. the illicit liquor was recovered from a place which was not in the exclusive possession of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge also of this view but he further observed that this fact has to be considered in context of the other evidence that some witnesses saw the appellant selling the liquor. 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appreciation of the evidence with regard to the seeing by several witnesses the sale of the illicit liquor by the accused was perverse. There was only one witness P. W. 2 who deposed to this fact which was inherently impossible. The petitioner, a police constable, would hardly dare to sell illicit liquor to various persons openly in the presence of several police constables. P. W. 2 Bhimsingh stated that on 11. 10. 71 in the evening at 5.30 p. m. he went towards the temple of Mataji and saw that several constables were standing in front of the quarter of petitioner Kanaram. They were saying that Kanaram was selling illicit liquor. P. W. 2 Bhimsingh stated that on 11. 10. 71 in the evening at 5.30 p. m. he went towards the temple of Mataji and saw that several constables were standing in front of the quarter of petitioner Kanaram. They were saying that Kanaram was selling illicit liquor. He also saw Kanaram selling liquor and made the telephonic complaint to R. I. In the cross-examination he further stated that he could not name the other constables who were saying that Kanaram was selling illicit liquor. Though he saw various persons purchasing illicit liquor but he could not say whether they belonged to the police or the public. 5. I have considered the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner which in my opinion ought to prevail. If various police constables saw the sale of illicit liquor by the accused, some of them atleast ought to have been produced alongwith one or two purchasers. It would be very risky to believe on the solitary statement of P. W. 2. Bhim Singh in the proof of this fact which was otherwise also inherently improbable. Nobody would normally sell illicit liquor to various persons openly much less a police constable would do so. The petitioner Kanaram was also aware that his sale of illicit liquor has been observed by several constables. Then as prudent man, in self interest he would have tried to dispossess himself of the incriminating articles for fear of a report in the police, yet the illicit liquor is said to have been recovered from the Almirah kept in an verandah which was accessible to every one. 6. The petitioner has given an explanation which may or may not be true that a police case has been foisted upon him because of the Jat Rajput rivalry. 7. Once I hold that the statement of P. W. 2 Bhim Singh was unreliable as to the fact of sale of illicit liquor by the petitioner to various persons in the presence of various police constables, no conclusive remained against the accused to fasten him with the liability of guilt. It was an admitted position that illicit liquor was recovered from an Almirah kept in an open verandah and, therefore, it could not be said that it was recovered from the exclusive possession of the petitioner because anybody could have kept the liquor there without the knowledge of the petitioner. It was an admitted position that illicit liquor was recovered from an Almirah kept in an open verandah and, therefore, it could not be said that it was recovered from the exclusive possession of the petitioner because anybody could have kept the liquor there without the knowledge of the petitioner. The prosecution has thus failed to prove that the petitioner was in possession of the illicit liquor and, therefore, the revision deserved to be accepted. 8. In the result of the revision is accepted and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge closed 27. 11. 75. convicting and sentencing the accused under section 54A of the Excise Act is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the same. The bail bonds of the accused are hereby discharged.Revision accepted. *******