JUDGMENT M. R. Verma J.: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.2.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba whereby the conviction of and sentence awarded to the accused-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused) by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba under Section 61 (1) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been set aside. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are as follows:- 3. A police party headed by PW-5 Ramesh Pathania was present in village Mangla on 13.2.1993 on routine patrol duty. A secret information was received by him that the accused was dealing in sale of illicit liquor in his tea-stall in Mangla bazar and in the event of raid of his business premises, huge quantity of liquor could be recovered. He accordingly prepared ruqua Ex.PW-5/A and forwarded the same for registration of the case whereupon FIR Ex.PW-1/A was recored in Police Station, Sadar, Chamba. He constituted a raiding party at about 5.15 P.M. and conducted the search of the tea-stall of the accused. In such search, a canny containing 10 liters of illicit liquor was recovered and was taken in possesion vide memo Ex.PW-3/A. The sample separated from the recovered liquor was sent for analysis and as per the report Ex. PA of the Asstt. Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat, the sample was found to be illicit liquor containing 46.4% proof alcoholic strength. On being satisfied that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 61(l)(a) of the Act, the officer Incharge, Police Station, Sadar, Chamba submitted a charge sheet to the concerned Court. 4. The accused was tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba on a charge under Section 61(l)(a) of the Act and was finally convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused was to suffere further simple imprisonment for 21 days vide judgement dated 19.7.1995. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal which came to be heard and accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba. Hence the present appeal by the State. , 6. I have heard the learned Addl. Advocate General and the learned counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records. 7. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal which came to be heard and accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba. Hence the present appeal by the State. , 6. I have heard the learned Addl. Advocate General and the learned counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records. 7. The accused has been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and die conclusions arrived at by him on the basis of the evidence on record, in this regard, cannot be said to be un-warranted, illegal and not based on evidence. 8. It is the case of the prosecution itself that the investigating officer had prior information about the alleged dealing in and sale ofillicit liquor by the accused and the search was to be conducted within the premises of his tea-stall. Thus he had ample opportunity and time to associate independent witnesses to witness the search. It is admitted by PW-3 Harish Kumar that the population of Mangla is about 500. Thus, there could not be dearth of independent local witnesses. However, the investigation officer joined only one person from the locality "Who was, no doubt, an independent witness and was also a member of the panchayat. He has, however, not been examined by the prosecution on the ground that he had been won over by the accused. Being a local witness and member of the panchayat, this witness ought to hava been examined and if he would not have supported the prosecution case, he could be declared hostile/cross-examined for the prosection. The other witness PW-3 Harish Kumar is neither a resident of the locality nor can be said to be otherwise independent. He has admitted that he belongs to a place 40 kms. away from the place of search. Though it is claimed that he is residing in Chamba, but the place of search is at an admitted distance of 9 kms. from Chamba. Thus, he cannot be said to be a respectable witness from the locality. He is a salesman in a liquor vend and thus, cannot be said to be an independent witness. Thus, there was no corroboration of the statement of the investigating officer by any independent witness. from Chamba. Thus, he cannot be said to be a respectable witness from the locality. He is a salesman in a liquor vend and thus, cannot be said to be an independent witness. Thus, there was no corroboration of the statement of the investigating officer by any independent witness. The fairness in the investigation is rendered suspicious by the act of the investigating officer in joining a person residing at Chamba as a witness to conduct the search. 9. Another irregularity committed in conducting the search which has been noticed by the learned Sessions Judge is that the copy of the recovery memo had not been made available to the accused after conducting the search. Thus, it is clearly a case of violation of the provisions of Section 100 Cr. P.C. 10. On the basis of the above discussion, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge and the consequential acquittal order passed by him does not call for interference by this Court. 11. As a result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 12. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal dismissed