JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J.—This Revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 26-3-1987 passed by the Sessions Judge, Una, District Una whereby the appeal of the petitioner-accused, Tilak Raj, was rejected and the judgment dated 15-11-1986 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, was confirmed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate had convicted the petitioner under section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to Himachal Pradesh, and sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 2. The prosecution case was that on 5-7-1984 Sh. Shamsher Singh, Head-Constable (PW 1) posted at Police Check-Post Pandoga, District Una, alongwith Sh. Dalip Singh (PW 2), Peon Excise Department, routine checked bus No. PUG-1908 of Punjab Roadways. This bus was coming from Hoshiarpur and was bound for Nangal. When Sh. Shamsher Singh crossed the seat on which the petitioner was sitting, he felt bad smell. On his enquiry, the petitioner pointed out two jerricans which contained 32 litres of spirit. He disclosed that these were brought from Jalandhar. At this, Sh. Shamsher Singh made the petitioner to alight from the bus alongwith the two jerricans. Later the petitioner was handed over to S. H. O,, Sh. Munshi Ram (PW 6) who took sample from the jerricans and sent them for chemical examination On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, a challan was put up. 3. S/Sh. Shamsber Singh (PW I) and Dalip Singh (PW 2) have supported the prosecution case in toto. According to Sh. Shamsher Singh, the petitioner bad disclosed to him that there was 32 litres of spirit in both the jerricans which he had brought from Jalandhar. At this, he brought down the petitioner and both the jerricans from the bus and later handed them over to Sh. Munshi Ram, S. H. O. who took the jerricans in his possession vide Memo Ex. P-A after taking out samples from them. He has further stated that Sh Dalip Singh (PW 2) a Peon of the Excise Department was with him during the checking of the bus and all this happened in his presence. Sh. Dalip Singh (PW 2) has reiterated what was stated by Sh. Shamsher Singh (PW 1). He had also signed Ex. P-A, Ex. P-B and Ex. P-C. 4. He has further stated that Sh Dalip Singh (PW 2) a Peon of the Excise Department was with him during the checking of the bus and all this happened in his presence. Sh. Dalip Singh (PW 2) has reiterated what was stated by Sh. Shamsher Singh (PW 1). He had also signed Ex. P-A, Ex. P-B and Ex. P-C. 4. The prosecution has also produced the driver oi the Bus, Rajan Kumar (PW 5) who has stated that his bus was checked by the Police at Pandoga village and two jerricans containing spirit were found underneath the seat on which one Babu was sitting. Anyhow, he showed his inability to identify that Babu He has further stated that the Babu was made to get down from the bus alongwith the jerricans and thereafter he drove awa> the bus from that place. Sh. Munshi Ram, S. H. O. (PW 6), has deposed that he took into possession both the jerricans vide memo Ex P-A and took out samples out of them which were sent to the Chemical Examiner whose report is Ex P-E. He has also stated about the further investigation conducted by him. The other witnesses are formal and their statements need not be discussed for the purpose of deciding this petition. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment of the Courts below as well as the record. Sh. S, S. Kanwar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged that it is a case of no evidence and both the Courts have wrongly held the petitioner guilty. According to him, the statement made by the petitioner to Sh. Shamsher Singh, Head Constable (PW 1) that the two jerricans contained spirit which the petitioner had brought from Jalandhar was a confessional statement made to a Police Officer and was inadmissible in evidence as provided in section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act If this statement is taken out of the record, there is no evidence by which the prosecution has proved the exclusive and conscious possession of two jerricans of spirit by the petitioner. In my opinion, there is substance in this argument. Admittedly, Sh. Shamsher Singh Head Constable was a Police Officer when the petitioner had made the confessional statement to him and it is in contravention of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act After declaring the statement of Sh. In my opinion, there is substance in this argument. Admittedly, Sh. Shamsher Singh Head Constable was a Police Officer when the petitioner had made the confessional statement to him and it is in contravention of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act After declaring the statement of Sh. Shamsher Singh Head Constable as inadmissible in evidence, the only statement remains of Shi Dalip Singh (PW 2) who was accompanying Sh. Shamsher Singh at the time of checking of the bus. Sh. Dalip Singh has only stated that he heard the petitioner making the alleged statement to Sh. Shamsher Singh. As such, no confession was made to him. Moreover, he was also a person in authority, being an official of the Excise Department. There is no corroboration to the alleged confession made by the petitioner to these witnesses. Though an independent witness Sh. Rajan Kumar (PW 5), the driver of the bus, was produced by the prosecution as their witness, yet, he has shown his inability to recognise the Babu who was sitting near two jerricans of spirit. As such, his statement is of no help to the prosecution case. 6. Sh. R M. Bisht, learned Law Officer, has tried to argue that section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act is not attracted in the facts of the present case as the statement made to Sh. Shamsher Singh (PW I) was not a confessional statement made to a Police officer during the investigation. In fact, it was made during routine check of the bus by Sh. Shamsher Singh. In my opinion, this argument has been raised to be rejected. The provisions of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act are very clear that confessional statement made to a Police officer either during investigation or otherwise is inadmissible in evidence. 7. In the result, the Revision petition succeeds and the judgment dated 26-3-1987 of Sessions Judge, Una, and the judgment dated 15-11-1986 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, are set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge. The fine already deposited by him be refunded to him. Revision petition allowed.