JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment of 15.2.2008 rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, in Excise Case No. 1-III-2007, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent (for short “accused”) for the offences charged. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.2.2006 at about 12.45 a.m. in the night HC Purshotam Dass No. 41 alongwith HHC Ajit Singh No. 149 and HHG Rakesh Kumar No. 10-5/101 was on patrolling duty at place Mehre vide Rapat Ex.PW-4/B. At the relevant time one Maruti car bearing No. HP-23A/2680 came from Dandru side at a high speed which was stopped by the police officials and on the basis of suspicion the aforesaid vehicle was checked. The police official recovered 5 cartons of Indian Made foreign liquor “Bagpiper whisky” each containing 12 bottles and one carton of country liquor “Patiala brand”. The police extracted out 2 bottles from two cartons of “Bagpiper whisky” and 1 bottle of country liquor “Patiala brand”, separately for sample purpose and thereafter sample bottles and remaining liquor were sealed and were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW-1/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. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court qua his committing offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of H.P, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 4witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. However, he did not choose to lead any evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal qua the accused. 6. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. 6. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of 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 respondent/accused has with considerable force and vigor contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating 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. The seizure of liquor borne on the relevant seizure memo embodied in Ex. PW-1/B occurred at a place reflected in the site plan comprised in Ex. PW-3/B. The recovery of illicit liquor stood effectuated from vehicle bearing No.HP23A-2680 which at the relevant time stood driven by the respondent. The prosecution for proving the genesis of the occurrence embodied in the FIR depended upon the testimonies of official witnesses. All the official witnesses in their respective testifications occurring in their respective examinations-in-chief rendered a version qua the prosecution case bereft of any stain of any inter-se contradictions occurring there within vis-à-vis their respective communications articulated in their respective cross-examinations. Also their respective testifications are free from any taint of any intra-se contradictions, in sequel thereto their taint free testifications warranted imputation of credence thereto. 10. The learned trial Court had pronounced an order of acquittal upon the respondent merely for non-association by the investigating Officer concerned of independent witnesses who despite evident availability in proximity to the relevant site of occurrence remained omitted to be associated by him in the relevant proceedings. 10. The learned trial Court had pronounced an order of acquittal upon the respondent merely for non-association by the investigating Officer concerned of independent witnesses who despite evident availability in proximity to the relevant site of occurrence remained omitted to be associated by him in the relevant proceedings. Though formidable evidence does exist on record qua availability of a thickly inhabited colony in close proximity to the site of occurrence yet the factum of a heavily populated colony occurring in close proximity to the relevant site of occurrence would not constrain an inference qua any omission on the part of the investigating Officer concerned to solicit their participation in the proceedings which occurred at the site of occurrence begetting a sequel of his thereupon concerting to smother the truth of the prosecution case or his inventing the effectuation of recovery of illicitly carried liquor bottles in the relevant car which at the relevant time stood driven by the respondent. Conspicuously also the aforesaid inference stands forbidden to be drawn by the evident factum of the relevant occurrence taking place in the morning at about 12.45 a.m. on 28.2.2006 whereat the inhabitants of homesteads occurring in close proximity thereof would not accede to any request of the investigating officer or of any official deputed by the investigating officer for soliciting their participation in the relevant proceedings. In sequel thereof the reason propounded by the learned trial Court qua non-association of independent witnesses in the relevant proceedings by the Investigating Officer despite their evident availability in close proximity thereof ingraining the prosecution case with a pervasive stain of vitiation cannot warrant it standing accepted by this Court. 11. In sequel thereof the reason propounded by the learned trial Court qua non-association of independent witnesses in the relevant proceedings by the Investigating Officer despite their evident availability in close proximity thereof ingraining the prosecution case with a pervasive stain of vitiation cannot warrant it standing accepted by this Court. 11. Even though on an incisive scanning of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is evident qua the aforesaid witnesses in their respective testifications voicing a taint free version qua the genesis of the prosecution case yet also when in their respective testifications they bespeak qua at the time contemporaneous to the relevant occurrence vehicles besides the vehicle wherefrom the relevant seizure occurred making their appearance at the relevant site of occurrence, nonetheless the afore-stated be speakings occurring there within also cannot facilitate the defence to make any espousal qua non-association of their occupants by the Investigating Officer as independent witnesses qua the relevant proceedings making pervasive inroads qua the efficacy besides the tenacity of the prosecution case unless compatible suggestions unveiling the factum of the investigating officer in making the aforesaid omissions hence concerting to smother the factum of his despite effectuating the relevant recovery from the aforesaid vehicles, his proceeding to introduce the carton of liquor onto the vehicle driven at the relevant time by the accused. In absence of the aforesaid apposite suggestions the mere factum of vehicles arriving at the site of occurrence in contemporarnity to the relevant proceedings occurring thereat would not stain the vigor of the prosecution case. 12. The learned counsel for the accused has contended with force qua the prosecution standing enjoined with a solemn obligation under law to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He also submits qua the testifications of the official witnesses not holding any element of creditworthiness. However his submission holds no force as this Court has concluded qua the testimonies of the official witnesses while making echoings therein in proof of the genesis of the prosecution case their relevant articulations qua the relevant factum probandum when free from any taints aforesaid hence enjoining this Court to thereupon proceed to impute credence to their respective testimonies. However his submission holds no force as this Court has concluded qua the testimonies of the official witnesses while making echoings therein in proof of the genesis of the prosecution case their relevant articulations qua the relevant factum probandum when free from any taints aforesaid hence enjoining this Court to thereupon proceed to impute credence to their respective testimonies. In face thereof yet with the prosecution thereupon succeeding in proving the genesis of the prosecution case, the defence contrarily was under an obligation to belittle its creditworthiness or also was under an obligation to by putting apposite suggestion to the prosecution witnesses make a concerted attempt in portrayal of the entire genesis of the prosecution case voiced by the prosecution witnesses standing engulfed in a pervasive shroud of doubt whereupon this Court would stand facilitated to conclude of the prosecution failing to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. However the defence has omitted to make the apposite endeavor. Significantly when the eminent principle of criminal jurisprudence though is held in the canon of the prosecution standing enjoined to prove its case to the hilt nonetheless for eroding the efficacy of propagations made by the PWs they are enjoined to be held to an exacting cross-examination for relevant unearthings there from standing elicited qua doubt hence seeping the genesis of the prosecution case whereupon alone on doubt standing reared qua the genesis or efficacy of the prosecution case would the apposite benefit accrue to the defence. Consequently when the aforesaid concerts are wholly amiss here at nor any doubt qua the aforesaid facet hence is gripping the prosecution case, ensuing sequel wherefrom is qua its benefit being undrawable by the defence. 13. Though the defence had made a feeble attempt to by putting suggestions qua availability of a liquor vend in close proximity to the site of occurrence to unveil vaguely there from qua the investigating officer concerned after collecting the liquor there from his introducing it onto the vehicle driven at the relevant time by the respondent wherefrom the relevant seizure occurred. However the aforesaid feeble attempt is also bereft of any specificity especially when it does not hold there within any suggestion unveiling the aforesaid factum. However the aforesaid feeble attempt is also bereft of any specificity especially when it does not hold there within any suggestion unveiling the aforesaid factum. Also with both PWs 1 and 3 where to whom the relevant suggestion stood put by the learned defence counsel while holding them to cross-examination qua the availability of a liquor vend in close proximity to the relevant site of occurrence though while meteing their respective answers thereto they acquiesced qua the relevant factum yet with both the aforesaid prosecution witnesses while meteing answers thereto also conveying qua its closing at 12.30 p.m. whereas the relevant seizure occurring 15 minutes thereafter whereupon the learned defence counsel was under an obligation to also put further suggestions to them qua at the relevant time whereat the relevant seizure occurred the liquor shop also remaining open thereat yet he omitted to put the aforesaid suggestion to them wherefrom it has to be concluded qua at the relevant time, the liquor shop occurring in close proximity to the site of occurrence not being open thereat. In aftermath it has to be concluded qua the defence even if it has feebly attempted there from to convey of the Investigating Officer after making the relevant collection there from his introducing the liquor bottles onto the car of the respondent/accused yet its attempt also standing wholly enfeebled, corollary whereof is qua the concert made by the defence to belittle the creditworthiness of the prosecution case propagated through the un-tainted testimonies of the prosecution witnesses also its concert to prove qua a pervasive doubt seeping into the genesis of the prosecution case wherefrom it has concerted here before to constrain this Court to make a conclusion qua the prosecution failing to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt apparently has to suffer the ill fate of its suffering outright rejection from this court. 14. Be that as it may the entire vigor of the prosecution case was held in the relevant factum of it succeeding in proving qua the relevant seizure of the liquor bottles, seizure whereof stands embodied in Ex.PW-1/B, on their production before the Court for theirs standing shown to the relevant PWs theirs thereat standing invincibly connected with the seizure of liquor bottles embodied in the apposite recovery memo. Efficacious proof qua connectivity existing qua the seizure of liquor bottles held in the relevant seizure memo vis-à-vis the ones which stood produced in Court stood constituted in the trite factum of liquor bottles on standing produced in Court for theirs standing shown to the relevant PWs theirs standing held in sealed cartons/boxes. However with PW-1 in his cross-examination testifying qua on the case property on standing shown to him in Court it not holding seals thereon, constrains this Court to conclude qua efficacious proof qua existence of an imminent connectivity occurring inter-se the liquor bottles embodied in seizure memo comprised in Ex.PW-1/B vis-à-vis the ones which stood produced in Court standing not unflinchingly proven by the prosecution. In sequel thereof the ensuing deduction there from is qua the prosecution not thereby proving the factum of liquor bottles which stood produced in Court standing connected or related qua the bottles borne on Ex.PW-1/B or theirs standing related to the opinion of the FSL concerned. Concomitantly with the aforesaid link qua the relevant trite factum aforesaid standing not effectively proven obviously a doubt seeps qua the vigor of the prosecution case benefit whereof ought to go to the accused. 15. A wholesome analysis of evidence on record portrays that except qua the aforesaid parameters the appreciation of evidence as done by the learned trial Court not suffering from any perversity and absurdity nor it can be said that the learned trial Court in recording findings of acquittal has committed any legal misdemeanor, in as much, as, its mis-appreciating the evidence on record or its omitting to appreciate relevant and admissible evidence. In aftermath this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court merit any interference. 16. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial Court is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back.