JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Both these appeals stand directed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the impugned judgement (s) recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan, whereby he recorded a verdict of acquittal upon the accused respondents. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.11.1999 around 9.00 a.m at Panch Parmeshwar Mandir I.O. PW-2 S.I. Virender Kumar was present alongwith other police officials including PW-8 H.C.Ravinder Lal when he received the secret information that one maruti van No. HP-02-4951 was carrying liquor coming from Chandigarh to Shimla. It is alleged that vehicle was not having front number plate and when the vehicle was seen by I.O. it was signaled to stop but it was not stopped and said maruti van was chased by police Naka party in taxi No. HP-01-078. But aforesaid van drove away towards bye pass road. It is alleged that when the aforesaid van allegedly carrying liquor reached near HRTC workshop bifurcation then a bus No. HP-14-3696 was coming out of workshop but due to rash driving of accused Ram Kumar driver of van struck against the bus. It is also alleged that then accused Sanjiv Kumar, who was sitting in van, tried to run away, but was over powered by police party and accused Ram Kumar was apprehended by police inside the car. It is also alleged that van was searched in presence of PW-5 Darshan Singh, Karam Chand, Kapil Sahani and in the back seat of the vehicle and dickey, 7 gunny bags were found, out of which six bags were found carrying 4 boxes each and one bag was found containing 2 boxes of country liquor and each box was containing 50 pouches each of 180 ml. liquor. It is also alleged that then I.O. took out 26 pouches out of which 26 nips were taken as sample and case property was sealed in presence of witnesses at the spot vide memo Ext.PW-2/B. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. A charge stood put to the accused by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 61 (i) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. 3. A charge stood put to the accused by the learned trial Court for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 61 (i) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded in which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. They did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court recorded findings of conviction against the accused whereas the learned Appellate Court returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 6. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Appellate Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross misappreciation by it of the relevant material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has with considerable force and vigour contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record by the learned trial Court and theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. At the place depicted in site plan Ext.PW-8/A occurred the relevant seizure of liquor carried in vehicle bearing No. HP-02-4951, whereon the accused were aboard. The prosecution in proof of its case depended upon the testimonies of official witnesses who therewithin rendered a version qua the prosecution case unbereft of any inter se contradictions occurring in their respective examinations in chief vis.a.vis. their respective cross-examinations besides theirs testimonies remained unblemished significantly when they deposed in harmony vis.a.vis. their respective testifications. The prosecution in proof of its case depended upon the testimonies of official witnesses who therewithin rendered a version qua the prosecution case unbereft of any inter se contradictions occurring in their respective examinations in chief vis.a.vis. their respective cross-examinations besides theirs testimonies remained unblemished significantly when they deposed in harmony vis.a.vis. their respective testifications. The uneroded testifications of official witnesses though hence held probative vigour yet the learned Appellate Court on anvil of the testification of PW-5 a witness to recovery memo Ext.PW-2/B who reneged from his previous statement recorded in writing proceeded to pronounce an order of acquittal upon the accused respondent. The reports of the CTL concerned comprised in Ext.PW-8/B to Ext.PW-8/F unveil a disclosure qua the 26 nips as stood extracted from 26 pouches held respectively in each of the 26 cartons borne in the relevant vehicle, nips whereof on standing received thereat whereupon their examination unraveling qua their holding liquor therewithin. The reports of the CTL concerned comprised in the afore referred exhibits formidably proclaim qua 26 nips extracted from amongst one of the bottles of liquor held in each of the cartons borne in the relevant vehicle wherefrom the relevant seizure occurred holding liquor wherefrom the learned Additional Sessions Judge stood enjoined to in conjunction with the untainted testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to draw a conclusion of the prosecution succeeding in proving its charge against the accused. However, as aforestated the learned Additional Sessions Judge had merely on anvil of one of the witnesses to seizure memo Ext.PW-2/B reneging from his previous statement recorded in writing proceeded to record a verdict of acquittal in favour of the accused. The aforesaid reason, which stands assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for recording a verdict of acquittal upon the accused is per se ridden with a gross inherent fallacy of his remaining unbereft of the trite factum of PW-5 while standing cross-examined by the learned APP in sequel to his standing declared hostile his admitting the factum of PW-2/B wherewithin occur the apposite recitals qua the relevant charge holding his signatures whereupon the inevitable sequel is qua the existence thereon of his signatures not standing bereft of any aura of authenticity. In sequel to PW-5 conceding qua his signatures borne on Ext.PW-2/B belonging to him thereupon the mandate of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act whereupon he on admitting the occurrence of his signatures thereon hence stood statutorily estopped to renege from the recitals borne thereon aroused attraction, thereupon the effect of his orally deposing in variance or in detraction to the recitals which occur thereon gets statutorily belittled rather when he naturally emphatically proves the recitals comprised in the apposite memo (s), it was neither appropriate nor tenable for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to conclude qua the recorded recitals borne on Ext.PW-2/B holding no evidentiary clout nor it was legally apt for him to outweigh the creditworthiness of the testimonies of the official witnesses qua the credible effectuation of recovery of liquor under recovery memo Ext.PW-2/B whereas the factum of the uncontroverted occurrence thereon of signatures of PW-5 wherewithin the apposite recitals are held enjoined imputation of credence thereon dehors his reneging from his previous statement recorded in writing. Reiteratedly, the ensuing sequel thereof is of with the statutory estoppel constituted in Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act barring PW-5 to resile from the contents of Ext.PW-2/B especially when he admits the occurrence of his signatures thereon renders unworthwhile besides insignificant the factum of his orally deposing in variance of the recorded recitals occurring therein contrarily per se an inference stands enhanced qua dehors his reneging from his previous statement recorded in writing, a deduction standing capitalized qua thereupon his proving the genesis of the prosecution case. 10. The learned counsel for the accused respondent has contended with vigour qua with PW-5 in his cross-examination acquiescing to the factum of the relevant vehicle striking a bus whereupon it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer concerned to lodge an apposite report with the police station concerned whereas his omitting to do so erodes the genesis of the occurrence depicted in F.I.R. borne on Ext.PW1/A. However, the aforesaid submission warrants its standing rejected outrightly as the prosecution was enjoined to only prove the factum of the relevant seizure displayed in Ext.PW-2/B standing efficaciously proven. Consequently with this Court recording an inference qua the contents of Ext.PW-2/B standing efficaciously proven dehors PW-5 resiling from his previous statement recorded in writing rendered unnecessary the omission if any of the Investigating Officer in reporting the factum of the relevant vehicle striking a bus. 11. Also the learned counsel for the accused has contended qua with the deposition of PW-6 a purported witness to Ext.PW-2/B not lending probative vigour significantly when evidently he uncontrovertedly was not present at the time contemporaneous to the relevant seizure standing made from the relevant vehicle by the Investigating Officer concerned rather his standing added as a witness subsequent to the completion of the relevant proceedings. However, even if PW-6 stood added as an independent witness to the relevant seizure memo after completion of the relevant proceedings yet when for reasons aforestated the deposition of one of the witnesses to Ext.PW-2/B solitarily holds formidable sinew thereupon the factum of subsequent addition of PW-6 as a witness to Ext.PW-2/B does not either erode the testification of PW-5 nor hence the relevant recitals borne therewithin loose their efficacy. 12. The learned counsel for the accused has contended with vigour qua the Investigating Officer concerned not collecting samples from each of the liquor bottles carried in all the cartons borne on the relevant vehicle nor his dispatching for examination to the CTL concerned samples collected from each of the liquor bottles carried in all the cartons borne on the relevant vehicle, whereas the CTL affirmatively opining only qua the samples of liquor extracted from 26 pouches from amongst the entire cache of liquor carried in all the cartons borne on the relevant vehicle entails a sequel of the prosecution succeeding in proving only the opinion recorded by the CTL, contrarily he contends qua the prosecution not succeeding in proving the factum qua all the bottles carried in all the cartons borne in the relevant vehicle holding therewithin liquor. However, the aforesaid submission warrants its standing discountenanced. However, the aforesaid submission warrants its standing discountenanced. A thorough circumspect reading of the evidence on record unravels qua both the accused respondents in their defence embodied in their respective statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. not unravelling therein the factum of except 26 bottles carried in each of the cartons amongst others carried thereon wherefrom amongst 26 samples stood collected by the Investigating Officer qua the other bottles carried in all the cartons borne in the relevant vehicle not holding liquor therewithin also they while holding the prosecution witnesses to cross-examination omitted to qua the facet aforesaid purvey apposite suggestions to them. The effect of the aforesaid omissions is qua both the accused acquiescing to the factum of all the bottles held in all the cartons borne in the relevant vehicle holding liquor dehors the factum of the Investigating Officer concerned extracting from amongst them 26 samples from only 26 pouches/bottles of liquor. 13. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned Sessions Judge suffers from a gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. In sequel thereto, I find merit in these appeals, which are accordingly allowed and the judgement of acquittal rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan is quashed and set-aside. Accordingly, the accused are held guilty for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 16 (i) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The judgement of conviction & sentence pronounced by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, is affirmed and upheld. In aftermath, the pronouncement recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Case No. 130/3 of 2000 be forthwith put to execution.