JUDGMENT 1. - By this Revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 20/2006 dated 19.5.06 whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 1 Sri Ganganagar, has been set aside and instead of sentencing him the accused petitioner has been given benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 directing the petitioner to deposit cost Rs. 5000/-. 2. For the disposal of the present Revision Petition, briefly stated, the facts are that house of the petitioner was raided and illicit liquor was recovered from the house of the petitioner. After usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the learned trial Court. During the course of trial, statements of 6 witnesses were recorded and some documents were produced in evidence. In the statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, accused denied the allegations levelled against him. 3. After hearing both the sides, trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner under Section 16 read with Section 54(D) of the Excise Act and sentenced the petitioner for a period of 6 months alongwith fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, accused was ordered to further undergo 1 month's rigorous imprisonment. The appeal preferred was partly accepted and accused petitioner has been given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act imposing fine of Rs. 5000/-. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred this Revision Petition under Section 397/401 of the Cr.PC. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the instant case in all 6 witnesses have been examined and both the courts below have failed to appreciate this important aspect of the matter that the place, from where the illicit liquor said to have been recovered, was not in the possession and ownership of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner if it is" so then entire case of the prosecution falls down. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that Ex. 2, the site plan, at the back of it makes a mention of some Ex-panch who verified that the house from where alleged illicit liquor was recovered was of the accused petitioner. 7. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that Ex. 2, the site plan, at the back of it makes a mention of some Ex-panch who verified that the house from where alleged illicit liquor was recovered was of the accused petitioner. 7. After having considered the submissions made before me it appears that in trial court two witnesses were declared hostile and remaining witnesses, though, in the examination in chief have stated that the house of the accused petitioner was raided but in the cross-examination stated that they did not make any inquiry from Tehsildar or any other person as to in which khasra number house is situated and whether the house was belonging to the accused petitioner. 8. In view of the above factual aspect and further taking into consideration that the alleged Ex-Panch, who has verified site plan, has not been produced in evidence, the evidence which has come on record lacks in proving exclusive possession of the petitioner over the house where the alleged illicit liquor was recovered, if that is so, then accused petitioner cannot be held responsible for the offence punishable under the Excise Act. 9. After taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the accused petitioner's Revision Petition require to be accepted and the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court and that of the order giving benefit of Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act by the Appellate Court requires to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside and he stands acquitted of the charge levelled against him.Accordingly, the Revision Petition is disposed of.Revision allowed. *******