JUDGMENT The instant appeal filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the State is directed against judgment and order dated 31st October, 2014, whereby the present respondents were acquitted from the charges framed against them. 2. Heard learned AGA and perused the material available on record. 3. Leaned AGA in support of the present application submits that impugned judgment is against the facts and law. He further submits that discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses have been given undue weight. Non examination of independent witness has been erroneously made the basis of acquittal. Report of Forensic Science Laboratory has been discarded on account of taking of samples under suspicious circumstances. 4. Briefly stated that on 6th June, 2010, one police party of P.S. Dewa while on patrolling duty on the basis of information received, arrested the respondents while they were selling adulterated and illicit tarhi. Three respondents were separately charged under Section 60 Excise Act and Section 272 IPC which they denied and were tried jointly. 5. Besides documentary evidence on behalf of the prosecution, five witnesses were examined. In their statements the accused denied the alleged recovery. The learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the reason that samples were not taken at the spot, there were material discrepancies in the testimonies of eye witnesses. No independent witness was either made or examined. 6. Perusal of the lower court record reveals that at the time of alleged arrest, recovery memo Ext. Ka-1 was prepared. However, there is no description of taking samples of the illicit liquor recovered from the spot. In order to rule out the possibility of accidental omission, we have checked the report of the general diary which reveals that when respondents and liquor was admitted in police station. There was no mention that samples were taken on the spot were also deposited there. 7. In view of above report of Forensic Science Laboratory looses its significance. The police personnel examined as members of the arresting party could not describe correct description of the place from which the alleged recovery was made. The discrepancies in their statements are significant. We agree with the opinion of the learned trial Judge that in such circumstances absence of public witness is also material. We find that the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge are well substantiated from the record. The discrepancies in their statements are significant. We agree with the opinion of the learned trial Judge that in such circumstances absence of public witness is also material. We find that the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge are well substantiated from the record. He has committed neither any illegal error nor appreciated the evidence in improper way. 8. The view formed by the learned trial Judge is also a possible view. The arguments advanced in support of the appeal are without substance. The appeal lacks merit. Leave to appeal is declined. 9. The instant appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission itself.