JUDGMENT M.R. VERMA, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 3.1.1995 of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Court No. 2), Paonta Sahib whereby the respondent/accused (hereinafter referred to as accused7) has been acquitted of the charge under Section 61 (I)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to Himachal Pradesh. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that a police patrolling party consisting of HC Kalyan Singh, Constable Balak Ram and constable Ganesh Kumar was going towards Jungle Khara on 25.11.1993 at about 5.30 a.m., when they saw the accused coming towards them through a Khala while he was carrying something on his head. On seeing the police party, the accused started running back, whereupon he was apprehended by the Police. On inquiry, he divulged his name and on search, a tube containing 18 bottles of illicit liquor was found in his possession which was taken into possession by PW-3 HC Kalyan Singh. After separating a sample of the recovered liquor, the sample and the container of the remaining illicit liquor were sealed with seal A and the seal was handed over to PW-2 Constable Balak Ram. Ruqua Ex. PW-3/A was drawn by the Investigating Officer and was sent to Police Station, Paonta for registration of the case through PW-2 Constable Balak Ram. On the basis of the ruqua, FIR Ex. PW-l/B came into being at the Police Station. 2. The sample nip was got chemically examined and as per the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PW-l/A, the sample was found that of illicit liquor containing 34.5% proof alcoholic strength. 3. On presentation of the charge sheet, the accused was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib and vide judgment dated 3.1.1995, the accused was acquitted. Feeling aggrieved, the State has come up in appeal. 4. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the accused and have gone through the record. 5. The contention for the appellant is that the charge against the accused has been duly proved in view of the evidence on the record which has wrongly been disbelieved by the learned trial Magistrate. 6. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the accused and have gone through the record. 5. The contention for the appellant is that the charge against the accused has been duly proved in view of the evidence on the record which has wrongly been disbelieved by the learned trial Magistrate. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused has argued that the evidence led by the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused is self contradictory and unreliable and has rightly been rejected as unbelievable and the resultant acquittal is based on correct appreciation of evidence on record. 7. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution in all examined four witnesses, namely, PW-1 HC Sukh Dev Singh. PW-2 C. Balak Ram, PW-3 HC Kalyan Singh and PW-4 HC Kesha a Nand. PW-3 HC Kalyan Singh and PW-2 C. Balak Ram had been examined to give the eye account of the occurrence. Both of them are police officials and members of the patrolling party which apprehended the accused. Though the testimony of such witnesses cannot be discarded or disbelieved for the mere reason of their being official witnesses interested in the success of the case but their statements have to be read with care and caution. 8. The statement of PW-2 Balak Ram when read as a whole creates grave doubt about his presence on the spot at the time of alleged detection and apprehension of the accused. As per the contents of Ruqua Ex. PW-3/A the police patrolling party had a chance encounter with the accused on 25.11.1993 at about 5.30 a.m. After his apprehension and search and on recovery of illicit liquor from him, the Ruqua Ex. PW-3/A came into being at 6.15 a.m. This Ruqua was handed over to PW-2 Balak Ram for being taken to and delivered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib so that a case on its basis was registered. On the basis of this Ruqua, FIR Ex. PW-1/Bwas recorded on 25.11.1993. PW-3/A came into being at 6.15 a.m. This Ruqua was handed over to PW-2 Balak Ram for being taken to and delivered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib so that a case on its basis was registered. On the basis of this Ruqua, FIR Ex. PW-1/Bwas recorded on 25.11.1993. However, this part of the version of the prosecution case is totally belied by the statement of PW-2 Balak Ram who, in his cross-examination, his stated that the police left Police Station Paonta Sahib on patrol duty at 2 or 2.30 p.m. According to the statement of this witness the place of apprehension of the accused is 14 to 16 kms. from Paonta. The witness goes on to state that he remained on the spot for about 1 or 1-1/2 hours and the entire investigation on the spot was conducted in his presence and he left the spot at 7 p.m. and reached at the Police Station alongwith the Investigating Officer (PW-3 Kaiyan Singh) at 10 p.m. His statement as discussed hereinabove, thus clearly shows that in the morning of 25.11.1993 he was not present at the place of apprehension of the accused. Therefore, his statement about what the Investigating Officer (PW-3 Kaiyan Singh) and his part} did in between 5.30 p.m. and 6.15 p.m. on 25.11.1993 is utterly untrustworthy and unreliable. 9. PW-3 Kaiyan Singh though by and large supports the prosecution version but he has introduced PW-2 Balak Ram as a witness of the apprehension and search of the accused and alleged recovery of illicit liquor from his possession whereas as aforesaid, the statement of PW-2 Balak Ram himself renders his presence on the spot at the relevant time as unbelievable. According to PW-3 Kaiyan Singh, police party had returned to the Police Station in the afternoon and the constable (PW-2 Balak Ram) had reached on the spot before noon. He does not state that the said constable was with him even at the time of apprehension of the accused at 5.30 a.m. on 25.11.1993; whereas in the Ruqua Ex. PW-3/A the said constable is shown as a member of the police patrol and present on the spot at the time of apprehension and search of the accused and the recovery of illicit liquor. PW-3/A the said constable is shown as a member of the police patrol and present on the spot at the time of apprehension and search of the accused and the recovery of illicit liquor. Thus, PW-3, Kaiyan Singh also does not support the contents of the Ruqua Ext PW-3/A prepared by him regarding presence of PW-2 Balak Ram at the time of apprehension of accused. 10. Thus, the statements of PW-3 Kaiyan Singh and PW-2 Balak Rarn the alleged witnesses of the apprehension and search of the accused and recovery of illicit liquor from his possession are not reliable. The learned trial Magistrate, therefore,, has rightly dis-believed these statements which are contradictory of each other on material particulars as already discussed hereinabove. 11. There axe other infirmities also in the prosecution case which render it unreliable. 12. The case property i.e. the recovered illicit liquor and apart thereof taken as a sample in a nip were allegedly sealed on the spot with seal A which was allegedly handed over to PW-2 Balak Ram. The seal so used has not been produced in the Court. 13. This is case of the prosecution that the illicit liquor contained in the tube was kept in a gunny bag and a slip (chit) signed by him and other recovery witnesses and seal A was affixed thereto. The allegedly recovered illicit liquor has been produced in evidence as Ex. P-l. PW-2 Balak Ram and PW-3 Kalyan Singh both have identified Ex. P-l as the recovered incriminating case property. However, it is admitted by both of them that Ex. P-1 did not contain the slip (chit) which was signed by recovery witnesses and affixed to the gunny bag nor does the gunny bag contain and other identifying mark. PW-2 Balak Ram has further stated that even the affixed seal impression was not available on the case property Ex. P-1. It cannot, therefore, be believed that Ex. P-1 is what had allegedly been recovered from the accused. 14. In view of the above, it is also not believable that the case property in question remained at the Police Station in such a safe custody that it was not tampered with in any manner by anyone. 15. The infirmities in the police case as aforesaid also render the prosecution version untrustworthy and unbelievable. 16. 14. In view of the above, it is also not believable that the case property in question remained at the Police Station in such a safe custody that it was not tampered with in any manner by anyone. 15. The infirmities in the police case as aforesaid also render the prosecution version untrustworthy and unbelievable. 16. For the reasons stated hereinabove, it cannot be held that the charge against the accused was proved, therefore, the judgment of the learned trial Magistrate acquitting the accused calls for no interference. 17. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.