JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 11.3.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan, (H.P), in Case No.31FTC/10 of 2007, whereby accused persons stand acquitted, State of Himachal Pradesh, has maintained the present appeal. 2. The key facts, giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, are that on 31.3.2005, at about 4:00 PM, ASI Prakash Chand (PW-8) alongwith HHC Ujjagar Singh (PW-1) and Constable Hardev Singh (PW-5) were on patrolling duty, at village Chabal, where accused persons carrying a bag, came on a motorcycle bearing No.HP-15-4674 from Jubbar side. On seeing the police party, accused persons threw bag from the motorcycle on the road and tried to fled away from the spot. They also left the motorcycle and ran towards forest. The police party chased them, one of the accused, namely, Diwan Chand, was nabbed by the police party, whereas another accused ran away from the spot. On search of the bag thrown by the accused persons from the motorcycle, it was found to have contained 09 bottles of country liquor marka ‘Lal Kila’. One bottle was broken. Accused persons could not produce any licence or permit for carrying 09 bottles. Out of the recovered bottles, three bottles were opened and one sample was separated from each, so opened bottle. The recovered bottles were also sealed with seal impression ‘A’ and taken into possession by the police. Specimen of seal impressions was separately taken and the seal after its use was handed over to HHC Ujjagar Singh (PW-1). Ruqua was prepared on the spot and sent to Police Station, on the basis of which, FIR was registered against the accused persons. The samples, on chemical examination, were found to be of country liquor. Police thoroughly investigated the matter and after conclusion of investigation challan was presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eight witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they have denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. However, they did not lead any defence evidence. 4. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eight witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they have denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence. However, they did not lead any defence evidence. 4. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the learned lower Appellate Court without appreciating the facts to its true perspective and also without appreciating the law correctly has acquitted the accused. He has further argued that the present is a fit case, where the accused is required to be convicted. On the other hand, Mr. O.C. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. No independent witness was associated by the prosecution, however the independent witnesses were available. The case property was deposited after three days of the alleged occurrence in the ‘Malkhana’ and there is no explanation of the delay. In these circumstances, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is just, reasoned and no interference is called for. 5. To appreciate the arguments of learned Deputy Advocate General and learned counsel for the accused, this Court has gone through the record in detail and minutely scrutinized the statements of the witnesses. 6. It has come on record that as far as the presence of accused persons are concerned, case of the prosecution is that they had fled away from the spot, after throwing a bag. In these circumstances, the case of the prosecution is required to be taken into consideration from other evidence, which has come on record to its true perspective. 7. PW-1 HHC Ujjagar Singh, deposed that on 31.3.2005, he alongwith ASI Prakash Chand (PW-8) and other police officials was present at Chabal, when at about 4:00 PM, two persons came on motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-15-4674 from the side of Jubbar, on seeing police officials, those persons got confused and they threw a bag on the road and thereafter fled towards the forest. On conducting the search of a bag, nine bottles of country made liquor mark ‘Lal kila’ were recovered from the bag. The seizure memo Ex.PW1/A, was prepared by the Investigating Officer, which bears the signature of Constable Hardev Singh (PW-5). On conducting the search of a bag, nine bottles of country made liquor mark ‘Lal kila’ were recovered from the bag. The seizure memo Ex.PW1/A, was prepared by the Investigating Officer, which bears the signature of Constable Hardev Singh (PW-5). He has also identified the bottles Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 and broken bottles Ex.P6 to be the same. In his cross-examination, he has stated that at village Jubbar, there are 7-8 shops. He has stated that from the police post they had gone in the private vehicle. He has stated that in Village Chabal, there are 8-10 houses. He has also specifically deposed that from Village Chabal and Jubbar or Garkhal, no independent witnesses were associated. He has also specifically denied that no liquor was recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused persons. PW-2 Head Constable Bharat Singh, has also partly investigated the case and stated that on receipt of the report from CTL, Kandaghat, he handed over the case file to Station House Officer, for preparation of the challan. PW-3 Constable Dukhbhanjan, took the sample bottles to the Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat. PW-4 Constable Shyam Lal, witness of seizure memo Ex.PW4/A, vide which, the motorcycle bearing No.HP-15-4674 alongwith its documents was taken into possession by the police. PW-5 Constable Hardev Singh, deposed about the recovery of 09 bottles of country made liquor from the bag carried by the accused persons on motorcycle. PW-6 Head Constable Ved Prakash, deposed about scribing of FIR Ex.PW6/A. He has also deposed that on 3.4.2005, the case property as well as the sample parts and the specimen of seal Ex.PW6/B were received through Constable Krishan Lal, at the Police Station qua which, he had made an entry in the register of ‘Malkhana’. PW-7 Constable Krishan Lal, deposed that on 3.4.2005, Incharge Chowki, handed over the case property and the same was deposited with MHC Ved Parkash. PW-8 ASI Prakash Chand, Investigating Officer, deposed that at the relevant time, he was on patrolling duty at village Chabal. He has stated that from the side of Jubbar, two persons came on motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-15-4674, and on seeing the police party, they threw a bag on the road and fled towards the jungle. On conducting the search of a bag, nine bottles of country made liquor mark ‘Lal kila’ were recovered, out of which, one bottle was broken. He has stated that from the side of Jubbar, two persons came on motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-15-4674, and on seeing the police party, they threw a bag on the road and fled towards the jungle. On conducting the search of a bag, nine bottles of country made liquor mark ‘Lal kila’ were recovered, out of which, one bottle was broken. The recovered liquor was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. Three bottles as sample were separated out of the entire lot of liquor and sealed with seal having impression ‘A’. The remaining bottles were put in the bag and it was also sealed with seal having impression ‘A’. Ruqua Ex.PW1/E was sent to Police Station, for registration of the FIR. In his cross-examination, he has stated that from Garkhal, they had gone in a private vehicle. He has stated that there are number of shops at place Jubbar. He admitted that he had not associated any independent witness. As far as the seal in the present case is concerned, as per PW-8 ASI Prakash Chand, that it was handed over to Head Constable Ujjagar Singh, but Ujjagar Singh (PW-1), while appearing in the witness box has not been stated that the seal after its use was handed over to him. In these circumstances, the possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out, when it has come on record, that case property, was deposited in the ‘Malkhana’ on 3.4.2005. The recovery was effected on 31.3.2005, where the case property remained upto 3.4.2005, is something, which cast a doubt in the prosecution story. So, the non production of the seal by HHC Ujjagar Singh (PW-1) to whom, it was handed over or his deposition to the effect, the seal was handed over is material, which he has not stated before the learned Trial Court. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 8. 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. 9. 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. 9. 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. 10. In Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has culled out the following principles qua powers of the appellate Courts while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal : “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 11. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 11. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and discussion made hereinabove, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith.