JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 24.3.1989 passed by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class Sardarshahar District Churu in a criminal case No. 79/85 whereby the learned judicial Magistrate did not find the accused respondent Rewant Singh guilty in the offence under Section 54 (A) and (D) of Rajasthan Excise Act and acquitted him. 2. The accused respondent Rewant Singh is alleged to have been found in the possession of two pitchers of wash, one jerikien full of liquor and other excisable article like that of Drumi Bhatti, Tagari Iron and condenser on 27.5.1984 at 9.30 a.m. in his residential house situated in village Bhojarsar Chota. 3. Heard arguments of Mr. O.P. Rathi, Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. None has appeared for the respondent. Perused the impugned judgment of the lower court as also the relevant material available on record. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has basically questioned the judgment of the lower court on one ground that the inference drawn by the lower court with regard to the recovery of wash, liquor and equipments for manufacturing liquor from the conscious possession of the accused is not just and according to the prosecution evidence. He has argued that the lower court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and wrongly drawn the conclusion that the recovery was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 5. Having gone through the prosecution evidence, it is found that the prosecution has examined only four witnesses in support of its case. PW/1 Sawai Singh and PW/2 Girdhari Singh are the independent witnesses who have not supported the prosecution case and they have turned hostile. PW/3 is Mr. Mahendra Pratap Singh who is said to have taken one quarter sample of wash and one sample of liquor to CPA Jaipur for chemical examination. PW/4 Shri Dhokal Ram is only the witness who has stated on oath that during the search of the house of the accused respondent Rewant Singh, the aforesaid wash, liquor and equipment for manufacturing liquor were recovered and the accused had no licence to keep them all. The learned lower court has acquitted the accused on this ground that the statement of Dhokal Ram have not been supported by any independent witness or other witness of Excise Department. The statement of PW/4 Dhokal Ram have remained un-corroborative. The learned lower court has acquitted the accused on this ground that the statement of Dhokal Ram have not been supported by any independent witness or other witness of Excise Department. The statement of PW/4 Dhokal Ram have remained un-corroborative. The Judgment of the lower court, in the facts and circumstances of the case is found to be just, proper and appropriate and in accordance with principles of criminal jurisprudence. 6. I do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal. To my view the said judgment does not call for any interference. 7. In view of the above, the criminal appeal filed by the State is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed *******