Short Note The Stale/appellant has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the respondents/accused for the offence under sections 13 and 16 of the Excise Act. punishable under sections 34. 36 and 37 of the said Act. It was alleged that during inspection by the officials of the Excise Department. on 13.9.92. they found that the respondents/accused without paying requisite excise fees. collected 400 bottles of liquors in the stock of the shop. The case was filed. The accused-persons pleaded not guilty on 20.11.92 on the date of framing of charge. Thereafter the case was fixed for prosecution evidence on 15.12.1992. On 15.12.92 it was adjourned to 18.12.92. On 18.12.92. the case was adjourned as the witnesses could not be summoned. The summons were accordingly issued for the next date, i.e. 27.1.93 as reflected in the order-sheet. On 27.1.93. the prosecution witnesses were present. but the learned Magistrate could not examine them, as he was busy in other matter as mentioned in the order-sheet dated 27.1.93. The order-sheet dated 27.1.93 does not show as to how many witnesses were present and whether they were bound over for the next day. The order-sheet does not disclose that summons were required to be issued. The case was adjourned to 6.2.93. On this date, none had appeared on behalf of the Excise department whereas witnesses namely Hirasingh and Budharam were present. The learned Magistrate questioned witnesses as to how they were present in Court without there being any summons/notice to them. Their statements were not recorded and the acquittal has been made on the ground that the witnesses were not produced by the prosecution while this is not correct position. Shri S.M.A. Naqvi. Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/appellant contended that the procedure adopted by the trial Magistrate is illegal and contrary to law. Shri T.C. Bansal. learned counsel for the respondents/accused on the other hand supported the order of acquittal. Having carefully gone through the record, especially the order-sheet dated 27.1.93, it is manifestly clear that the witnesses were present on 27.1.93 before the trial Court but the learned Magistrate could not examine them as he was busy in some other matter. Thus. it was not fault of the prosecution. On that date. the State was well represented through a APP. Thus. it was not fault of the prosecution. On that date. the State was well represented through a APP. The order-sheet dated 27.1.93 docs not show which of the witnesses were present and which of the witnesses were not present. The case was adjourned to 6.2.93. On 6.2.93. the witnesses were present, namely, Hiralal and Budharam. The learned Magistrate asked them as to how they were present without there being summons/warrants and their statements were not recorded. The procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is illegal. The Magistrate discharged the witnesses without recording their evidence. and recorded the finding of acquittal that the prosecution has failed to adduce evidence in support of its case. The learned Magistrate acted mechanically. without application of mind. and the acquittal which is recorded in the manner indicated above is not sustainable in law at all. It is wholly illegal and contrary to law. This Court is conscious of the fact that the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference can be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality but where the approach made by the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court-below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously. the interference has to be made by the appellate Court. As discussed above. on 27.1.93, the witnesses were present before the trial Court but they could not be examined as the learned Magistrate was busy in some other matter. and then the case was adjourned to 6.2.93. On 6.2.93, the witnesses