JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated 17.6 81. The learned Sessions Judge has sustained the conviction of accused petitioner Chinda Singh under Section 54-A and sentenced him till rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to further undergo one months simple imprisonment and under Section 54-D sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The facts of this case are that on 11-7-76 at about 6 p.m. the Excise Officer made a search of the house of the petitioner and it is stated that one bottle of illicit liquor was found in the corner of a room and one pitcher of Lohan, one pipa, one babri and one lid having hole in it and a tube fitted in the said lid were recovered from the house of the petitioner. Sample of liquor was taken in one quarter bottle and the sanhple of Lohan was taken into a separate quarter bottle. The samples were sent for chemical examination to the Chemical Analyst. According to the report of the Chemical Analyst, the sample of liquor contained liquor and sample of Lohan also contained Lohan in it. Excise Department submitted challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. During the trial, prosecution examined five witnesses in all and one witness was examined on behalf of the accused After trial, the Trial Judge convicted the accused-petitioner and sentenced under Section 54-A till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default one months simple imprisonment and under Section 54-D to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 200/-, in default two months rigorous imprisonment. Against the judgment of Judicial Magistrate, appeal was preferred before learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar who rejected the appeal of accused petitioner and confirmed the sentence. Being aggrieved, the accused petitioner has filed revision petition in this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner Shri Garg submitted that Courts below were not justified in convicting the accused petitioner, the finding in respect of possession which is contrary to the evidence on record. He also submitted that samples were not the same as they were taken and sealed on the spot. 3. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner Shri Garg submitted that Courts below were not justified in convicting the accused petitioner, the finding in respect of possession which is contrary to the evidence on record. He also submitted that samples were not the same as they were taken and sealed on the spot. They were of white colour while during the trial they were found of diff rent colour and that was admitted by (PWI) Dalpat Singh and (PW5) Hansram. For possession he S-Not same and sealed-common independent witness supports argued that Patrolling Officer did not know the house of Chinda Singh and it was on the basis of Excise Inspector Hansram (PW5). Hansram relied on two motbirs namely Hazara Singh (PW2) and Pyara Singh (PW3). In their statements before the Court they submitted that the seized articles were found in a common house which is occupied by Chinda Singh accused petitioner, Makhan Singh and Chanan Singh. That, Hansram. Inspector also placed reliance on the statements of Motbiran that the articles seized in question were in possession of Chinda Singh. Patrolling Officer relied on Inspector. Mr. Garg, therefore, pointed out that the finding arrived at by the Courts below is contrary to the statements on record and perverse, that finding can be interfered by this Court. For that he relied on 1986 RLW 493 (Ram Vilas v. State) and 1972 AIR Supreme Court 949 (Ram Ekbal v. Jaldhari Pandey ). 4. Learned Public Prosecutor, Shri Panwar submitted that in revision petitions High Court should not interfere on the finding of facts. 5. I heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. (PWI) Dalpat Singh, states that he did not know the house of Chinda Singh. The recovery was made in the house at the instance of Inspector Hansram. Inspector, Hansram in his cross-examination states that the court-yard is common for Chinda Singh and Chanan Singh, the possession of articles seized is supported by Motbiran but when he look into the statements of Motbiran Hazara Singh and Pyara Singh, both of them accept that the court-yard is common of Chinda Singh, Makhan Singh and Chanan Singh. I have also gone through the Ex.P.2, Site Plan. That further supports that this court-yard is common of accused Chinda Singh and Chanan Singh. I have also gone through the Ex.P.2, Site Plan. That further supports that this court-yard is common of accused Chinda Singh and Chanan Singh. Therefore, when the articles were found in the common court-yard, the findings of the court below are contrary to the facts on the record. As neither (PW2) Hazara Singh nor (PW3) Pyara Singh supports the case of prosecution, who are independent witnesses and motbiran in respect of the recovery of these articles in question, they were declared hostile. 6. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that normally this Court should not interfere in the findings of facts in case of revision petitions but when the findings are perverse on record, this Court can interfere in findings of lower courts. 7. In case of Ram Vilas v. State (1986 RLW 493) this Court has taken the view that as a general rule, the High Court will not interfere in revision with a finding of fact. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor may be correct but the High Court may interfere with the finding of fact where the finding has been arrived at contrary to the well settled principle of law or where there is no evidence to support the finding or where the finding is perverse or no reasonable man could have arrived at such a finding arrived at. In this case except Dalpat Singh (FW1) Excise Officer and Hansram (PW5) Excise Inspector, no independent witness supports that the recovery was from the kotha of Chinda Singh accused. Even the Motbiran Hazara Singh (PW2) and Pyara Singh (PW3) do not support the case of prosecution. They said that they have no knowledge of any recovery from the kotha of Chinda Singh, some articles were found in the chowk or court yard common for three persons including Chinda Singh. That, common chowk was used by these three persons. 8. The question is how it can be said that the articles in question were found in possession of Chinda Singh. Even from the cross-examination of (PWI) Dalpat Singh and (PW5) Hansram it has come on record that Dalpat Singh had no personal knowledge regarding the house of Chinda Singh. The recovery was made at the instance of inspector Hansram (PWS). The question is how it can be said that the articles in question were found in possession of Chinda Singh. Even from the cross-examination of (PWI) Dalpat Singh and (PW5) Hansram it has come on record that Dalpat Singh had no personal knowledge regarding the house of Chinda Singh. The recovery was made at the instance of inspector Hansram (PWS). Hansram, Excise Inspector has stated that he went to the house of Chinda Singh alongwith Patrolling Officer, Dalpat Singh and Motbiran also support that the articles in question were in possession of Chinda Singh but he himself admits that in that particular court-yard one other person namely Chanan Singh was living, but the question is when the recovery is not from the Kotha of Chinda Singh but from the common chowk which was shared by Chanan Singh, Makhan Singh and Chinda Singh, how those articles can be said to be in possession of Cninda Singh only when they were found in the common chowk. Therefore, the finding regarding accepting the articles in possession of Chinda Singh is contrary to the facts on record I am of the view that accused was wrongly convicted and sentenced. 9. In the result, revision petition is allowed. The judgment of learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The accused petitioner is acquitted of the charge. His bail bonds and sureties shall stand discharged forthwith.Revision petition allowed. *******