JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - The prosecution case in brief is that on 4.1.83, HC Baldev Singh along with Balbir Singh and Constable Subeg Singh was going to village Jawaharewala from village Kalewala in connection with excise checking and when this police party headed by HC Baldev Singh reached a point 1 km. short of village Jawaharewala there was emission of smoke noticed by them from the grove of reeds near the water works. HC Baldev Singh and his party reached that point from where there was emission of smoke. Accused was found distilling illicit liquor by means of working still. At the time of raid, he was found feeding fire in the hearth of the still. Accused was arrested. Still was dismantled and its components were cooled down. A drum containing about 80 kgs. of lahan was lying on the hearth of the still which was being used as boiler. Another drum containing 200 kgs. lahan was lying near the working still. Liquor was trickling after distillation and slowly falling in the receiving pipa. A nip was taken out as sample out of the recovered liquor lying in the pipa. Remaining liquor was transferred in 3 bottles. Drum boiler, sample nip, bottles and this drum which was containing 200 kgs. of lahan were sealed with the seal bearing impression BS. Drum boiler etc. were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PA attested by Constable Subeg Singh and HC Balbir Singh. Ruqa Ex.PB was sent to the police station for the registration of case against the accused on the basis of which case FIR Ex.PB/1 was registered at PS Sadar Guruharsahai. Visual site plan Ex.PC was prepared at the spot with correct marginal notes. On return to the police station the same day, the case property was deposited with MHC Avtar Singh. On 5.1.83 at PS Guruharsahai, Excise Inspector tested the contents of drum boiler. From their taste, colour and smell the same were found lahan fully fermented and partially distilled. He tested the contents of the other drum. From their colour, smell and test, he found the same to fully fermented lahan fit for distillation of illicit liquor. He gave test report Ex. PD in this behalf to MHC Avtar Singh. Sample was sent to the chemical examiner for chemical examination. The chemical examiner reported vide report Ex.PE that the same contained liquor of illicit origin. 2. From their colour, smell and test, he found the same to fully fermented lahan fit for distillation of illicit liquor. He gave test report Ex. PD in this behalf to MHC Avtar Singh. Sample was sent to the chemical examiner for chemical examination. The chemical examiner reported vide report Ex.PE that the same contained liquor of illicit origin. 2. After investigation, accused was challaned under section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act. Accused was charged under section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur vide order dated 24.2.1984. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 3. At the conclusion of the trial, he was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month under section 61(1)(c) of the Panjab Excise Act vide order dated 13.11.1987. Accused went in appeal. Appeal was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide order dated 7.5.88. 4. Still not satisfied, accused has come up in revision to this court. 5. Conviction rests on the statements of HC Baldev Singh and Constable Subeg Singh PWs. Both of them are police officials interested in the success of the case detected by them. HC Baldev Singh etc. were on excise checking. HC Baldev Singh ought to have known that during the course of excise checking some body could fall prey to him. He ought to have joined some independent witness with him so that greater assurance could be lent to this raid. HC Baldev Singh PW1 stated that they tried to join independent witness but none was available. It is not believable that at about 2 PM none was available. If sincere effort had been made to join independent witness, independent witness could have been joined. HC Baldev Singh stated that liquor was transferred into the bottles with funnel. Funnel had been brought by some constable. That constable could have been directed by HC Beldev Singh to bring with him that person from whom he had brought funnel. If that person had been brought to the spot, he could have stated whether the police was present at the spot or it was a made up story. It would not be safe to maintain the conviction and sentence of one year RI and fine of Rs. If that person had been brought to the spot, he could have stated whether the police was present at the spot or it was a made up story. It would not be safe to maintain the conviction and sentence of one year RI and fine of Rs. 5,000/- on the accused on the bare testimony of HC Baldev Singh and that of constable Subeg Singh who are lower rung police officials who are discrepant also. In this case, independent corroboration could be had but was not had for the reason best known to HC Baldev Singh, without independent corroboration, putting restraint on the liberty of the accused would be against the principles of criminal jurisprudence which presume an accused to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt by evidence of unimpeachable character. 6. For the reasons given above, this revision succeeds. This revision is accordingly accepted and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him. Revision allowed.