JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - The present Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State (Hereinafter referred to as ''the appellant'') laying challenge to judgment, dated 15.02.2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 114-3 of 2006, whereby the judgment of conviction, as passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, theog, District Shimla, H.P., in Case No. 114-3 of 2006, against the respondent/Accused (hereinafter referred to as ''the Accused''), was set aside. 2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present Appeal, as per the prosecution, are that on 29.03.2006 when police personnel were on patrol duty around 04:30 p.m., near Raighat-Shadyana road, in vehicle (Tata Mobile) bearing registration No. HP-07-5328, a white coloured Maruti Car having registration No. HP-01-0972 came from Shadyana side. After seeing the police party, the driver of the vehicle started reversing the vehicle in a high speed. The vehicle was chased and after about ten kilometers the driver of the vehicle, stopped the vehicle and he started throwing liquor boxes in a nalla. Police found three carton boxes of liquor, out of which two carton boxes were of English liquor ''Bagpiper'' and one box was of English liquor ''McDowell''. Police also counted the liquor thrown in the nalla, which came to be 48 bottles of ''Bagpiper'', 26 bottles of ''McDowell'' and 12 bottles of country made liquor ''Saroor''. 18 bottles of English liquor ''McDowell'' and 5 bottles of country made liquor were found broken. In total 120 bottles were recovered from the respondent/Accused (hereinafter referred to as the Accused''). Police took as samples one bottle each from McDowell, Bagpiper and Country made liquor Saroor and sealed the same with seal having impression ''S''. Specimen seal was taken on a separate piece of cloth and the statement of the witnesses were also recorded. Remains of broken bottles were also taken into possession and rukka was sent to Police Station, theog, whereupon FIR against the Accused was registered. Site plan was prepared and vehicle of the Accused was taken into possession. The Accused was arrested and later on released on bail. Report of the Chemical Analyst revealed that sample of IMFL (McDowell) contains alcoholic strength 75.1%, country made liquor contains alcoholic strength 47.9% and IMFL (Bagpiper) contains 74.4% alcoholic strength. Site plan was prepared and vehicle of the Accused was taken into possession. The Accused was arrested and later on released on bail. Report of the Chemical Analyst revealed that sample of IMFL (McDowell) contains alcoholic strength 75.1%, country made liquor contains alcoholic strength 47.9% and IMFL (Bagpiper) contains 74.4% alcoholic strength. After thoroughly investigating the matter, the police found involvement of the Accused in the commission of the offence under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, thus challan was prepared and presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as five witnesses. Statement of the Accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence, however, he did not examine any defence witness. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 19.09.2007, convicted the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 7,000/- (rupees seven thousand) and in default of payment of fine, He was to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The Accused laid challenge to the judgment of conviction, as passed by the learned Trial Court by maintaining an Appeal in the learned First Appellate Court and the learned First Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment dated 15.02.2008 set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and acquitted the Accused, hence the present Appeal preferred by the appellant/State. 5. The learned Law Officer appearing for the appellant/State has argued that the judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court is without appreciating the law to its true perspective and the learned First Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the prosecution has proved the case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused/respondent has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. He has argued that there was neither sealing of the recovered liquor nor the liquor was proved to be recovered from the Accused. The Appeal, which is without merits, required to be dismissed. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, this Court has gone through the record carefully and in detail. 7. He has argued that there was neither sealing of the recovered liquor nor the liquor was proved to be recovered from the Accused. The Appeal, which is without merits, required to be dismissed. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, this Court has gone through the record carefully and in detail. 7. Constable Pawan Kumar (PW-1) took samples of liquor to C.T.L. Kandaghat and he has handed over the receipt to MHC. Constable Jagat Ram (PW-2), Driver, deposed that Constable Surinder Kumar and head Constable Sita Ram were going towards Shadayana side on patrol duty. He has further deposed that when they reached about half kilometer, a Maruti Car came from theog side and on seeing the police, driver of the vehicle reversed his vehicle and drove the same towards Dhamandri. The driver stopped the vehicle at a distance of about 10 kilometers and he was throwing liquor boxes in the nalla. The police personnel apprehended the driver (Accused), who disclosed his name as Susheel Kumar. On search of the vehicle, three carton boxes of liquor were found and out of which two carton boxes were of English Liquor ''Bagpiper'' and one box of English liquor ''McDowell''. He has further deposed that liquor thrown in the nalla was also counted and the same came to be 48 bottles of Bagpiper, 24 bottles of McDowell and 12 bottles of country made liquor ''Saroor''. As per this witness, one bottle each from McDowell, Bagpiper and Country made liquor Saroor were separated as samples and sealed with seal impression ''S'', vide memo Ex. PW-2/A. Facsimile seals were taken on a piece of cloth. He has also signed the recovery memo and his signatures are encircled in ''A''. This witness, in his cross-examination has admitted that there are residential houses in between Raighat and village Dhamandri, however, no person was called on the spot. He has further deposed that when he alongwith others came on the spot none, except the driver (Accused), was present inside the vehicle. He has admitted that just above the Janoti nalla, there is Janoti village. He feigned ignorance that there is village Shwag just below Janoti nalla. He has further deposed that 18 bottles of McDowell and 5 bottles of country made liquor ''Saroor'' were found broken. 8. He has admitted that just above the Janoti nalla, there is Janoti village. He feigned ignorance that there is village Shwag just below Janoti nalla. He has further deposed that 18 bottles of McDowell and 5 bottles of country made liquor ''Saroor'' were found broken. 8. MHC Man Dev (PW-3) deposed that he has sent samples of liquor to C.T.L. Kandaghat, through Constable Pawan Kumar (PW-1). He has further deposed that under his custody the case property was not tampered with. He has proved on record photocopy of receipt, Ex. PW-3/A. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that when the case property was deposited with him, broken bottles were not sealed. Constable Surinder Singh (PW-4) deposed that he was member of the patrolling party. He has further deposed that on 29.03.2006 he alongwith head Constable Sita Ram, Driver Jagat Ram reached at Shadyana while patrolling. As per this witness, approximately half kilometer on Shadyana road, they spotted a Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP-01-0972 coming from the opposite side. He has further deposed that on seeing the police, the driver of the van reversed his vehicle towards Dhamandri. The vehicle was parked at Janoti Nalla, where the Accused was throwing liquor boxes in the nalla. The Accused was apprehended and there were three carton boxes of liquor inside the vehicle, out of which two carton boxes were of English liquor ''Bagpiper'' and one box was of English liquor ''McDowell''. As per this witness, the bottles thrown in the nalla, on counting, were found two carton boxes of English liquor Bagpiper and one box of English liquor McDowell and besides this one carton box of country made liquor ''Saroor'' were found broken. In total 123 bottles were recovered. One bottle each from McDowell, Bagpiper and country made liquor ''Saroor'' were separated as samples and taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PW-2/A. This witness, in his cross-examination, admitted that village Dochi is at a distance of half kilometer towards Shadyana side from Raighat. He has further deposed that after village Tiger Sakoti, village Shadyana comes and there are 30-40 houses in that village. No person was associated therefrom as a witness and no local person was called. He feigned ignorance whether broken bottles were also sealed in separate parcel. 9. Head Constable Sita Ram (PW-5), Investigating Officer, supported the prosecution case. He has further deposed that after village Tiger Sakoti, village Shadyana comes and there are 30-40 houses in that village. No person was associated therefrom as a witness and no local person was called. He feigned ignorance whether broken bottles were also sealed in separate parcel. 9. Head Constable Sita Ram (PW-5), Investigating Officer, supported the prosecution case. He has further deposed that the Accused could not produce any licence/permit for possessing the liquor. As per this witness, rukka, Ex. PW-5/A, was sent by him to Police Station, whereupon FIR, Ex. PW-5/B, was registered. This witness, took into possession the contraband and Maruti Car alongwith its documents, vide memo Ex. PW-2/A. He prepared spot map, Ex. PW-5/C, and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that village Shadyana is en route and no independent witness was associated by the police, as there was no nearby abadi. As per this witness, 72 bottles could not be sealed, as they were not having ample cloth with them. No seal was affixed on bottles of McDowell (Ex. P-2). He has further deposed that the case property was not sealed, however, the sample bottles were duly sealed. He has further deposed that no FIR No. was written on the case property. 10. Certainly, in the cases of recovery of contraband from the exclusive and conscious possession of the Accused, the onus is on the shoulders of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt, by leading cogent and convincing evidence to the effect that the Accused was found in exclusive and conscious possession of the contraband. In the case in hand, as per the prosecution story, the recovery of contraband was effected from the Accused, however, the link evidence qua taking out samples, sealing of samples as well as the case property, sending the samples for chemical analysis to C.T.L. Kandaghat and samples remaining intact under the police custody creates a doubt in the prosecution story. 11. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged liquor was recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the Accused and the material recovered was liquor and nothing else. In the present case, the prosecution has also failed to prove that samples were preserved after being sealed and they were not tampered with. 11. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged liquor was recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the Accused and the material recovered was liquor and nothing else. In the present case, the prosecution has also failed to prove that samples were preserved after being sealed and they were not tampered with. This link evidence is missing, which is clear from the statement of PW-1, Constable Pawan Kumar. PW-1 could not depose that he had brought the seal impressions with the samples, which were deposited by him with MHC. At the same point of time, PW-3, MHC Man Dev deposed that seal impressions were separately deposited with him. As per this witness, seal impressions were not sent to the chemical analysis alongwith the sample parts. PW-5, Head Constable Sita Ram, is silent qua seal impressions having been sent to MHC of the concerned Police Station alongwith the sample parts. Even dockets, Ex. PZ-1 to Ex. PZ-3 also do not reflect that seal impressions were separately sent to the laboratory with the sample parts. As the seal impression were not compared in the laboratory by the chemical analyst, in these circumstances it is unsafe to conclude that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled that where there is doubt in the prosecution story, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. At the same point of time, the spot wherefrom the alleged liquor was recovered is also doubtful, and the quantity recovered is also doubtful, as bulk was not sealed. 12. 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/mis-appreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 13. 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. 14. 13. 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. 14. 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, reappreciate 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." 15. 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." 15. In view of the settled legal position, as aforesaid, and the material on record, it is more than safe to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused and the findings of acquittal, as recorded by the learned First Appellate Court, needs no interference, as the same are the result of appreciating the evidence correctly and to its true perspective. Accordingly, the Appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. 16. In view of the above, the Appeal, so also pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.