JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. (Oral) - Nikku Singh son of Gurdial Singh stands acquitted of the charge under Section 61(1)(c) of the Punjab Excise Act (in short to be referred as the Act) by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot vide judgment dated September 26, 1991. Feeling aggrieved, the State of Punjab has come up in appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on February 7, 1986 a secret information was received by ASI Gurbax Singh that Nikku Singh, the respondent-herein used to indulge in distilling illicit liquor by running a working still and if raided, large quantity of illicit liquor could be recovered. On the basis of this information, formal FIR (Exhibit PB) was got registered. Thereafter the police party headed by ASI Gurbax Singh conducted a raid on this house. The accused was apprehended while distilling illicit liquor by means of working still in his kotha. Certain articles of the working still alongwith the can containing the liquor were recovered. The quantity of liquor was equivalent to five bottles. The sample was drawn. The sample and the can were sealed with the seal of GS and taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exhibit PA. Certain other formalities were also completed at the spot. The sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. After receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner (Exhibit PD), the respondent was sent up to face trial. 3. The respondent was charged under Sections 61(1)(c) of the Act. 4. In order to prove its case against the respondent, the prosecution examined HC Sukhdev Singh (PW-1) and ASI Gurbux Singh (PW-2). Besides this, the report of the Chemical Examiner was also tendered into evidence. 5. The respondent denied the allegations of the prosecution and took the stand that he was falsely implicated in this case at the instance of liquor contractor. He, however, did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. I have heard Mr. G.S. Hooda, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. However, none has appeared for the respondent. It is an old appeal. Thus, I am disposing of the same with the sole assistance of learned State Counsel. I have gone through the entire record minutely. 7. There are material discrepanices in the statements of HC Sukhdev Singh (PW1) and ASI Gurbax Singh (PW2), which go the root of the case. However, none has appeared for the respondent. It is an old appeal. Thus, I am disposing of the same with the sole assistance of learned State Counsel. I have gone through the entire record minutely. 7. There are material discrepanices in the statements of HC Sukhdev Singh (PW1) and ASI Gurbax Singh (PW2), which go the root of the case. This aspect has been taken into account by the learned trial Court. 8. Another material lacuna in this case is that the link evidence is missing because Brij Lal Sharma, who had allegedly tested the sample and re-sealed the same with the seal BL is not produced. No doubt report of Brij Lal was tendered in evidence as Exhibit PG, but it was required to be proved by examining him in the Court. This lacuna goes deep into the root of the case of the prosecution and dents it. 9. Another fact which has been taken into account by the learned trial Court is that Mukhtiar Singh an independent witness was joined at the time of searching the kotha of the respondent, but he has not been produced in the witness box, which is a serious infirmity and the testimony of two official witnesses is discrepant on many counts. 10. Keeping in view all such serious infirmities in the prosecution case, the learned trial Court has extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent. In my view the impugned judgment of acquittal is well-reasoned and is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, which has been re-scanned by me. The same is hereby affirmed. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. Appeal dismissed.