JUDGMENT M. R. Verma, J.: This is an appeal against the judgement dated 6.12.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur whereby the accused-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has been acquitted of the charge under Section 61(l)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the Act)- 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 23.1.1993 at about 6.30 P.M., the accused was apprehended by a police party headed by PW-5 Mohinder Singh and was found in possession of 8 bottles of country liquor (Patiala Orange Masaladar). After separating 4 nips of sample of the liquor, the recovered property and the nips containing the sample were sealed on the spot Ruqua Ex.PW-1/A was sent for registration of the case whereupon FIR Ex. P W-5/A was registered at Police Station, Kot Kehloor. The samples of the liquor were sent to the Chemical Examiner who vide reports Exs.PW-3/B and PW-3/C found that three of the samples contained 50.3% proof alcohol strength and one of the sample contained 49.7% proof alcohol strength. On being satisfied that the accused was in illicit possession of liquor, the officer- Incharge Police Station, Kot Kehloor submitted charge sheet against the accused who was tried for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 61 (1)(a) of the Act and was acquitted vide the impugned judgment Hence this appeal. 3. I have heard the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records. 4. The learned trial Magistrate has recorded the acquittal of the accused on the ground that no independent witness has been joined by the investigating officer in the search and recovery. In the ordinary course, in a case where the accused on seeing the police may attempt to abscond and police has to follow him and he is only apprehended after a chase, neither it is possible nor required that independent witnesses in the search and recovery must be joined. Though this is also one of such cases but it is evident from the statement of PW-3 Mohinder Kumar that he had the time and opportunity to join independent witness in the search and to witness the alleged recovery. Though this is also one of such cases but it is evident from the statement of PW-3 Mohinder Kumar that he had the time and opportunity to join independent witness in the search and to witness the alleged recovery. He has stated in his cross-examination that at Toba where the accused was apprehended, there are 6 or 7 shops where 6 or 7 shopkeepers carry on their business and the customers also continue to come over there. He has further admitted that at the relevant time two or three shops were open. He has further stated that he had asked them to witness the search and the recovery but they had refused. It is implicit in this statement that there was time and opportunity to join independent witnesses who were available. However, according to the investigating officer, they could not be joined because they refused to do so. However, the investigating officer has given this version for the first time in his cross-examination. Neither he has stated so in his examination-in-chief nor he is shown to have maintained any record about his asking the independent witnesses to witness the search and recovery and that they had refused to do so. Even as a matter of prudence when the time and opportunity was available to join the independent witnesses they ought to have been joined and their non- joining thus renders the prosecution version unreliable. 5. There is yet another aspect of the matter which appears not to have been taken into account by the learned trial Magistrate. It is the prosecution case itself that PW-2 Shyam Lal, a police constable was present on the spot throughout the process of apprehension and search of the accused and the recovery of the liquor from his possession. He is one of the marginal witnesses of the recovery memo Ex.PW-1/A and has been examined as PW-2. He has not uttered even a single word about the seeing of the accused by the police party, chasing him, apprehending him and about his search and the alleged recovery. Thus, being an eye witness of the whole occurrence, the silence of this witness about the alleged facts renders the entire prosecution version and the statements of PW-1 Des Raj and PW-3 Mohinder Kumar unreliable. In view of the above, the impugned order of acquittal does not call for any interference by this Court 6. Thus, being an eye witness of the whole occurrence, the silence of this witness about the alleged facts renders the entire prosecution version and the statements of PW-1 Des Raj and PW-3 Mohinder Kumar unreliable. In view of the above, the impugned order of acquittal does not call for any interference by this Court 6. As a result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 7. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. -