JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant-State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of acquittal of the accused in a case under Section 61-1-14 of the Punjab Excise Act (as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, dated 1.12.2007, in Criminal Case No.44/3 of 2005. 2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 26.9.2005, SI/SHO alongwith other Police officials was on patrolling duty and was going towards Sadhupul from Kandaghat at about 11:20 pm, one person came from the side of Sartaj tea Stall, namely, Rajinder Kumar, who is owner of the above tea stall, carrying one carton/box on his right shoulder. After seeing the police party, he threw carton on side of the road and ran towards Sadhupul. No local witness was available as it was night time and in opening the carton/box before the police officials and 12 bottles of country made liquor Marked Patiala Orange 750 ml. each were recovered from which three bottles were separated for chemical test and sealed with seal impression ‘T’. Remaining 09 bottles were also taken into possession by the police and memo was prepared. Seal sample was procured on separate cloth and was handed over to witness Jeet Ram. Chemical test report from CTL was obtained and challan was presented after the completion of investigation. 3. Charge was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 07 witnesses. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein accused denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. No defence evidence was led by the accused. 5. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State and learned defence counsel for the respondent/accused. 6. To appreciate the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General and learned defence counsel, this Court has gone through the record in detail and minutely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses. 7. PW-1, HC Jeet Ram, has deposed that he was present with the raiding party, Rajinder Kumar came with one carton on his right shoulder towards his shop Sartaj tea stall and threw the box after seeing the police and fled away from the spot. 7. PW-1, HC Jeet Ram, has deposed that he was present with the raiding party, Rajinder Kumar came with one carton on his right shoulder towards his shop Sartaj tea stall and threw the box after seeing the police and fled away from the spot. Box was checked and 12 bottles of country liquor were recovered, liquor was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/A. In cross-examination, he admitted that he recognizes the accused and denied that no police official followed the accused at that time. 8. PW-2 HHC Kishore Kumar, has deposited the sample of liquor sealed with impression ‘T’ at Chemical Test Laboratory. 9. PW-3 HC Taranjeet Singh, received the case property i.e. 09 bottles of country liquor bottles sealed with impression ‘T’, sample was sent to CTL, Kandaghat and returning receipt was deposited with him. 10. PW-4 C. Jitender Kumar, deposed that no private witness was available when liquor was recovered. He has also signed on memo Ex.PW1/A and recognized bottles Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9. In cross-examination, he deposed that they were having torch at that time of patrolling. 11. PW-5, proved on record rojnamcha Ex.PW5/A. 12. PW-6 SI Avtar Chand, has conducted the investigation and stated that case property was sealed with impression ‘T’, whose sample is Ex.PW6/A, which was handed over to HC Jeet Ram. Rukka Ex.PW6/B was written on which, FIR Ex.PW6/C, was registered, which is signed by ASI Sohan Singh. He prepared spot map Ex.PW6/D and recorded the statement of witnesses. In cross-examination, he stated that they saw the accused from the distance of 15-20 feet and denied that false case has been made out against the accused. He has further denied that there are plenty of shops near the tea stall and admitted that residential house of Rajinder Kumar is below tea stall. 13. PW-7 C. Kamlesh Kumar, was present with other police officials, supported the version of prosecution witnesses and deposed that rukka was handed over to him, on which case was registered. He denied that they have not seen the accused on the spot and nothing was recovered from the accused. 14. 13. PW-7 C. Kamlesh Kumar, was present with other police officials, supported the version of prosecution witnesses and deposed that rukka was handed over to him, on which case was registered. He denied that they have not seen the accused on the spot and nothing was recovered from the accused. 14. From the above discussion of evidence on record, it is clear that the identity of the respondent/accused is not established on record, as per the police witnesses, accused ran away towards Sadhupul side after throwing one carton of country made liquor, having 12 bottles Marked Patiala Orange and the police officials could see only the back of the accused. The police official has not visited the house of accused, which was just near by and did not enquire about the accused at that time. There were many other residential houses near the place of occurrence as per the police witnesses, but none was associated by the police in the investigation. Non examination of independent witnesses and not visiting of the residence of accused which was just below the place of alleged incidence casts a serious doubt about the prosecution story, as it was dark night and as per the prosecution story, accused ran away towards Sadhupul side. Further, distance as given by the police officials from which accused ran away is also not consistent, so a doubt is created with regard to the identity of the accused. In the absence of prosecution witnesses, connecting the accused/respondent with 12 bottles of country made liquor which were recovered in front of the tea stall/residence of the accused, it will be very difficult to hold that it was the accused who was in exclusive and conscious possession of these 12 bottles of country made liquor Marked Patiala Orange. 15. From the evidence of prosecution, it has not come on record as to who dropped the box containing 12 bottles Marked Patiala Orange in front of the tea stall/residence of the accused. From the material on record, it is found that the police has booked the accused just on the basis of suspicion because he was having his residence/tea stall at that place. 16. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. 16. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. So, in my humble opinion, when the identity of the accused is not established and the findings of the learned Court below cannot be said to be perverse and against the law, as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond reasonable doubt. 19. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and discussion made above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds of accused are discharged.