JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused against judgment, dated 19.07.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2007 and judgment passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 1, Amb in case No. 24-1 of 2001/6-III/2002, convicting and sentencing the petitioners under the provisions of Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 2000/- and further convicting petitioner No. 2 to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Case of the prosecution was that ASI Madan Lal (PW-4) was on petrol duty alongwith LHC Gulzari Lal, Constable Narender Kumar and driver Constable Harish Kumar on the intervening night of 6/7.12.2000 near a place called ‘Guga Chak Sarai’. The police received a secret information to the effect that accused Jai Lal, S/o Sh. Amin Chand, R/o Village Rapoh Muchlian, was transporting a huge consignment of liquor in a vehicle bearing registration No. HP-19-4277 from Akrot side. Accordingly, a ruka was prepared and sent through LHC Gulzari Lal (PW-1) and a nakka was laid on the road to apprehend the said vehicle. A vehicle was noticed coming from Akrot side. This vehicle was stopped about 50-60 yards from the police vehicle and two persons came out from the said vehicle and tried to flee from the spot. However, one of them was nabbed by the police officials at the spot, though the other managed to escape. When the vehicle was checked, 360 bottles of IMFL bearing mark ‘Old Tebrun’ in 30 cartons were recovered. The accused could not produce any permit authorizing him to transport the same. Accordingly, police lifted one bottle each of IMFL from each of the 30 cartons. Thereafter one nip each was taken out of these 30 bottles and the said bottles were sealed with seal impression ‘K’. The vehicle was also taken into possession. Later on, the documents of the vehicle were produced by accused Sukhdev on 08.12.2000. The samples were sent to Central Testing Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as “CTL”). Report of the same disclosed that the seized bottles contained IMFL, which reports are Ex. PA to Ex. PF. 3. The vehicle was also taken into possession. Later on, the documents of the vehicle were produced by accused Sukhdev on 08.12.2000. The samples were sent to Central Testing Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as “CTL”). Report of the same disclosed that the seized bottles contained IMFL, which reports are Ex. PA to Ex. PF. 3. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties and going through the record, found a prima facie case against accused under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh and under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Charges were accordingly framed against the accused and put to them, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 9 witnesses. No witness was produced by the accused. 5. On the basis of material produced on record by the prosecution, learned trial Court concluded that the prosecution was successful in proving that the accused at the relevant date, time and place were found in exclusive and conscious possession of 360 bottles of IMFL without any permit in a vehicle bearing No. HP-19-4277 in violation of relevant provisions of Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. Accordingly, it convicted the accused under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. Accused Sukhdev was also convicted under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said conviction was on the ground that accused Sukhdev had not produced any driving licence in the Court during the course of trial. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 10.07.2008. Learned Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the learned trial Court had rightly held that the prosecution witnesses were cogent, credible and worth reliance which did not require any further corroboration and that the offences alleged against the accused adequately stood proved, established and brought home by the prosecution Thus, learned appellate Court held that no fault could be found with the conviction so recorded by the learned trial Court and it up-held the conviction of the accused under the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act as well as Motor Vehicles Act. 7. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the present petition was preferred by the accused. 8. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel has strenuously argued that the judgments passed by both the Courts below were not sustainable in the eyes of law. According to Mr. Thakur, the conclusions which had been arrived at by both the Courts below were not borne out from the material produced on record by the prosecution. According to him, there were major contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses coupled with the fact that no independent witness was associated by the prosecution which made the version of the prosecution highly doubtful. All these important aspects of the matter had been ignored by both the Courts below while convicting the accused for the offences alleged against them. According to Mr. Thakur, the prosecution had miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt as far as the alleged recovery of liquor from them is concerned. As per him, the case put forth by the prosecution made it clear that the police was having prior information as disclosed in the challan, but despite this, no steps were taken to join or associate any independent or local witness of the area and the said non-association of independent witness created serious doubt about the veracity of the story of the prosecution especially as no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the police as to why this was not done. According to Mr. Thakur, the alleged recovery from the jeep of accused Sukhdev Singh created serious doubt about the story of the prosecution as the documents of the jeep ought to have been in the jeep itself which was taken into possession by the police on 06.12.2000 and it was not understood as to why these documents were shown to have been recovered from accused Sukhdev Singh subsequently. According to him, the prosecution had failed to bring any material on record to substantiate that accused Sukhdev either transported the liquor or had the knowledge of such liquor being transported. In fact, as per Mr. Thakur, accused Sukhdev Singh had been falsely implicated in the alleged office by the prosecution. He further argued that no proper procedure had been followed by the police in carrying search and seizure of liquor as well as while taking the sample and depositing the same in malkhana. In fact, as per Mr. Thakur, accused Sukhdev Singh had been falsely implicated in the alleged office by the prosecution. He further argued that no proper procedure had been followed by the police in carrying search and seizure of liquor as well as while taking the sample and depositing the same in malkhana. He argued that there were major and material contradictions in the statements of PW-4 ASI Madan Lal and Investigating Officer Sh. Narinder Kumar (PW-8) with regard to taking of samples in the nips and their procurement. Further, according to him, both the learned Courts below have not appreciated that when sample was taken only from 30 bottles of liquor then, it could not have held by the learned Courts below that 360 bottles of IMFL were being transported in violation of the provisions of Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, as the offence, if any, was committed only qua 30 bottles of liquor. According to Mr. Thakur, the non-observance of the procedure in depositing the case property in malkhana also created serious doubt in the story of the prosecution and the link evidence was also missing to connect the petitioners/accused with the commission of the offence. Mr. Thakur also argued that this was in fact a case of unfair investigation which was apparent from the fact that in the site plan Ex. PW5/A, no aabadi, rain shelter or shops etc. were shown, whereas all these things existed at the spot. Thus, on these basis, he submitted that the conclusions arrived at by both the Courts below were perverse and the conviction of the accused was highly unjustified in law and accordingly, he prayed that the judgment of conviction passed against the accused be set aside and the accused be ordered to be acquitted because the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. 9. On the other hand, Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that there was neither any infirmity nor any perversity with the judgments passed by the learned Courts below. According to him, the accused were rightly convicted by the learned trial Court and this conviction was rightly upheld by the learned Appellate Court keeping in view the fact that the prosecution had been able to bring home the guilt of the accused. Mr. According to him, the accused were rightly convicted by the learned trial Court and this conviction was rightly upheld by the learned Appellate Court keeping in view the fact that the prosecution had been able to bring home the guilt of the accused. Mr. Chauhan has argued that neither there was any major discrepancy in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses nor the version of the prosecution could have been disbelieved only on this account that no local witness was associated when it was amply clear from the case put forth by the prosecution that it was not possible to associate any independent witness in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Mr. Chauhan further contended that the presence of accused Jai Lal at the spot has not been disputed by the defence. In support of the alleged version of Jai Lal, neither his wife nor the alleged driver of the vehicle from which he alighted down was produced as witness by Jai Lal. With regard to independent witnesses, he argued that PW-2 and PW-5 have categorically stated that the steps were taken to associate the Pradhan and why he could not be associated has also been cogently explained by them. He further submitted that area where occurrence took place is not a densely populated area. Thus, he contended that there was no merit in the present revision petition and the same deserved to be dismissed. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records of the case. 11. PW-1 Gulzari Lal has stated that he was alongwith the police party and at night around 12:30 a.m., a secret information was received to the effect that accused Jai Lal was transporting huge quantity of liquor in vehicle No. HP-19-4277. On the receipt of said secret information, a ruka was prepared and sent to Police Station through said witness. He has stated in his cross-examination that he was coming from Amb to Chak Sarai in a vehicle. He has also stated that he had returned back to Chak Sarai at around 1:30 a.m. 12. PW-2 Constable Harish Kumar has stated that a secret information was received to the effect that liquor was being transported from Akrot side and accordingly, a ruka was sent to Police Station through LHC Gulzari Lal (PW-1). He has also stated that he had returned back to Chak Sarai at around 1:30 a.m. 12. PW-2 Constable Harish Kumar has stated that a secret information was received to the effect that liquor was being transported from Akrot side and accordingly, a ruka was sent to Police Station through LHC Gulzari Lal (PW-1). He has further stated that thereafter a wooden log was put on the road so as to ensure that the police was in a position to stop the vehicle and in case suspected vehicle was found, action could be taken in accordance with law. This witness has further deposed that LHC Gulzari Lal had come from Chak Sarai to Amb on foot. 13. PW-3 Jasbir Singh has stated that on 08.12.2000 accused Sukhdev had produced documents of vehicle which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW3/A. PW-4 SI Madan Lal has stated that a vehicle came at around 2:30 a.m., which was stopped at some distance and two persons got out from the same and tried to run away. One was nabbed who is accused Jai Lal, however, the other managed to escape. 360 bottles in 30 carton boxes were recovered from the vehicle and one nip was taken from each of the bottles of carton as sample for chemical examination, which were thereafter sealed with letter ‘K’. Separate seal impressions were also taken. 14. Head Constable Rajesh Kumar has deposed as PW-5 that he prepared the site plan. HHC Subhash Chand (PW-6) has stated that on 22.12.2000, MHC Mehar Singh (PW-7) gave him sample nips sealed by letter ‘K’ to CTL, which were accordingly deposited by him. PW-7 Head Constable Mehar Chand has stated that he gave 30 nips for depositing the same at CTL. He sent sample nips alongwith sample seal to CTL. 15. PW-8 Constable Narinder has narrated the steps which were taken by the police to stop the suspected vehicle by placing the wooden log on the road. He has also stated that in the course of time when the efforts were being made to make local persons join investigation, lights of a vehicle approaching from Akrot side were noticed and this vehicle was stopped at a distance of about 50-60 yards from the vehicle of the police. From the said vehicle, two persons came out and started running and one of them was nabbed, whereas the other managed to escape. From the said vehicle, two persons came out and started running and one of them was nabbed, whereas the other managed to escape. 16. PW-9 is Inspector Kailash Walia, who has also entered into the witness box and supported the case set up by the prosecution. 17. I have carefully perused the statements of PW-1 HHC Gulzari Lal and PW-8 Constable Narinder Kumar on which much stress has been laid by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Conjoint reading of the testimonies of these two witnesses along with other prosecution witnesses clearly establishes the story of the prosecution that accused Jai Lal was nabbed by the police at around 2:30 a.m. on 06.12.2000 at Akrot when he tried to run away after alighting from truck bearing No. HP-19-4277 (Utility) in which 360 bottles of IMFL mark Old Travon kept in 30 carton boxes, which liquor was being transported in violation of the provisions of Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The presence of the accused at the spot has not been denied. The story put forth by the accused as to why they were present at the spot has not been corroborated by them. The second accused had managed to escape from the spot but he was the owner of the truck. On the other hand, the prosecution has duly corroborated its version on the basis of testimonies of its witnesses which proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were transporting IMFL liquor illegally without any valid permit in the vehicle concerned on the fateful night. The prosecution has plausibly explained as to why no independent witness could be associated. Further, it is settled law that non-association of independent witness does not per se renders the story of the prosecution disbelieveable. If the prosecution is able to substantiate its case on the basis of the testimonies of police witnesses, then the conviction can be based on the basis of testimonies of said police witnesses if the same inspires confidence. In the present case, the testimonies of police witnesses are cogent, reliable and trustworthy. The defence has not been able to impinge the truthfulness of the said witnesses. Minor discrepancies, if any, cannot be said to be so fatal so as to dislodge the entire case of the prosecution. In the present case, the testimonies of police witnesses are cogent, reliable and trustworthy. The defence has not been able to impinge the truthfulness of the said witnesses. Minor discrepancies, if any, cannot be said to be so fatal so as to dislodge the entire case of the prosecution. It is also a matter of record that the vehicle in issue is registered in the name of accused Sukhdev Singh. It is not the case of accused Sukhdev Singh that the said vehicle had either been stolen or that it was taken away from his possession without his knowledge and that the same was being plied without his consent. 18. PW-6 HHC Subhash Chand and PW-7 HC Mehar Singh have duly proved the link evidence. PW-4 Madan Lal and PW-5 HC Rajesh Kumar have supported the case of the prosecution and their testimonies have not been impinged in any manner whatsoever by the defence. Accused Sukhdev Singh did not have a driving licence nor he produced any such licence before the police during the course of trial. The report of Chemical Examiner further corroborates the story of the prosecution that the samples which were taken from the confiscated bottles were that of IMFL. Therefore, keeping all these aspects of the matter in view, it cannot be said that the judgment of conviction returned by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned Appellate Court is either perverse or findings returned were not borne out from the records of the case. 19. Even otherwise, this Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction is not to act as an Appellate Court. 20. In my considered view, the findings which have been arrived at by the learned Courts below cannot be said to be alien to the material produced on record by the prosecution. Neither there is any misreading nor there is any mis-appreciation of evidence on record. 21. There is no infirmity with the judgments passed by the learned Courts below. It cannot be said that any material particular has been overlooked either by the learned trial Court or by the learned Appellate Court. There is no perversity in the findings arrived at by the learned Courts below. It is well settled law that the jurisdiction of High Court in revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re- appreciation of evidence. There is no perversity in the findings arrived at by the learned Courts below. It is well settled law that the jurisdiction of High Court in revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re- appreciation of evidence. The High Court in revision cannot absence or error on a point of law, re-appreciate evidence and reverse a finding of law. 22. It has been further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Janta Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhury & others, 1992 (4) SCC 305 that the object of the revisional jurisdiction was to confer power upon superior criminal Courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precaution or apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand, or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship to individuals. 23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Briksh Singh and others Vs. Ambika Yadav and another, (2004) 7 SCC 665 , has again held that Revisional Court can interfere with the findings of lower court where Courts below have overlooked material evidence. 24. Though the power of this Court is as wide as the power of the Appellate Court, yet it will not hear the revision as an appeal and reappraise the evidence and will interfere only in exceptional cases to prevent flagrant miscarriage of justice. Revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised by this Court to substitute its own view with that of the learned lower Court on a question of fact. Unless the finding of the Court below is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is based on irrelevant evidence or ignoring relevant evidence, it is impermissible to interfere with the order of the learned Court below in revisional jurisdiction. This Court has held in Jaswant Rai Vs. State of H.P., 2000 Cr. L.J. 1970 (1971) (HP) that though the revisional powers of the High Court are very wide, but are purely discretionary and should be exercised only in rare cases to prevent miscarriage of justice. 25. Thus it can be safely inferred that this Court has to exercise its revisional powers sparingly. Though, this court is not required to act as a Court of appeal, however, at the same time, it is the duty of the Court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. 25. Thus it can be safely inferred that this Court has to exercise its revisional powers sparingly. Though, this court is not required to act as a Court of appeal, however, at the same time, it is the duty of the Court to correct manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. However, I do not find any manifest illegality with the judgments passed by the learned Courts below in the present case. 26. As far as the contention of Mr. Thakur that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside on the ground that the accused could not have been convicted for illicit transport of 360 bottles of IMFL when samples were only taken from 30 bottles is concerned, in my considered view, though there is force in it but the judgments passed by the learned Courts below do not entail reversal on this count. This is for the reason that even transporting 30 bottles of IMFL without a valid licence is violation of the provisions of Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. 27. Therefore, in my considered view, the interest of justice will be served if the sentence imposed upon the accused is modified keeping in mind that the prosecution has not been able to establish that all 360 bottles were containing IMFL. Thus, as far as the conviction of accused under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh and that of accused Sukhdev Singh under the provisions of Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act are concerned, the same are upheld. However, the sentence passed by the learned trial Court is modified and it is ordered that each of the convict shall undergo rigourous imprisonment for three months instead of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine, each of the convict shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of H.P. Sentence imposed upon accused No. 2 under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act is also upheld and both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. With the said modification in the sentence, the revision petition is disposed of in above terms.