JUDGMENT : SURJIT SINGH, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment of trial Magistrate, whereby respondent Gurcharan Singh, who was tried for an offence, punishable under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, as is applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, has been acquitted. 2. Allegations on which the respondent was put on trial may be summed up thus. On 31.3.1999, a police party comprising of two Head Constables, namely Suram Singh (PW-3) and Karam Chand (PW-5) and a constable named Madan Gopal (PW1), had gone to village Behal to investigate some case against one Dhian Singh of that village. Respondent was seen coming along a path around 10.30 in the night. He was carrying two cartons, each containing 24 pouches of country liquor Una No. 1. Samples were taken from three pouches. The same were sent to Chemical Examiner, who opined their contents to be of country liquor. 3. Respondent denied that liquor was recovered from him and pleaded that he had been falsely implicated. 4. Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution evidence, because it consisted of only the above named three police officials and as per the trial Magistrate, there were material contradictions in their testimony. 5. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned defence counsel and gone through the record. Prosecution witnesses named above contradicted each other with regard to the place where the respondent was allegedly apprehended with cartons of liquor. According to PW-1 Madan Gopal, the respondent was apprehended at a distance of 2 kilometres from village Behal, while according to PW-5 HC Karam Chand, he was arrested in village Behal when investigation of a case against one Dhian Singh was going one. There is also contradiction in the evidence as to the time when the police party went to village Behal from the Police Station. PW-5 HC Karam Chand stated that the police party reached village Behal that day at 5 P.M. while PW-1 Constable Madan Gopal stated that the police party started from the Police Station at 8 P.M. Again, PW-1 Madan Gopal stated that the respondent was apprehended with liquor at 10.15 during day time, but the other witnesses stated that he was arrested in the night and the proceedings were conducted and recorded in torch light. 6. 6. Apart from the above noticed contradictions, the prosecution did not produce the liquor allegedly recovered from the respondent. Its failure to produce the liquor renders it liable to adverse inference to the effect that no liquor, as alleged, was recovered from the respondent. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed.