ORDER A.S. Garg, J. - On the basis of a secret information an F.I.R. No. 239 dated 5.9.1983 Ex.PA/1 under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1961, was registered at Police Station, Safidon against the petitioners that they were distilling illicit liquor by means of a working still which was being run in the sugar-cane field. The police party headed by Jai Bhagwan, Head Constable raided the fields and they found the petitioners working a still and distilling illicit liquor. The components of the working still along with a drum containing 40 Kgs. of lahan and 3-1/4 bottles of illicit liquor were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PB. Also they recovered one pitcher of lahan containing about 15 kgs. of lahan. After receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PE the petitioners were prosecuted and were tried. 2. On the testimony of HC Jai Bhagwan, PW.1 and Banwari Lal, PW.4, both the petitioners were convicted by the learned trial Magistrate under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each. In default of payment of fine each of them was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1-1/2 months. The appeal filed against their conviction and sentence was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has been that despite the fact that the police had a secret information and an independent witness Hazara Singh was associated but he did not support the prosecution version and that on the testimony of the official witnesses it is not safe to base the conviction of the petitioners. It is also urged that there are serious contradictions in the statements of the police officials. The statements of HC Jai Bhagwan, PW.1 and HC Banwari Lal, PW.4 are not at all inspiring confidence because of the serious contradictions and material omissions. The witnesses contradicted themselves on the question as to where they had been just prior to the alleged capture of the working still. They did not know if any spectators had assembled at the place of recovery. They did not exactly know as to from where an alleged independent witness Hazara Singh was joined. They were also contradicted about the time of the investigation of the case. They did not know if any spectators had assembled at the place of recovery. They did not exactly know as to from where an alleged independent witness Hazara Singh was joined. They were also contradicted about the time of the investigation of the case. These contradictions and omissions would obviously render the case of the prosecution doubtful even if the testimony of the witnesses had been recorded 2/3 years of the occurrence. A human being has photographic memory and can very easily give details of the official duties performed by them, if they had been actually performed in the given manner. If they contradict each other it may result into the doubt, the benefit of which must go to the alleged offenders. 4. Therefore, in the given case neither the independent witness joined by the police has supported the prosecution story nor the statements of the police officials are inspiring confidence because of the contradictions and omissions. Hence, both the petitioners are acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. 5. The revision petition is allowed accordingly. Petition allowed.