JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J 1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Una, District Una, H.P. who while reversing the findings of conviction pronounced upon the accused by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Una, proceeded to acquit the accused. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the on 15.08.2001 at about 3.00 a.m a police party headed by ASI Akshay Kumar was present in Naka duty and on routine checking near Shamshan Ghar, Una an Indica Car white in colour being driven by accused Baljeet Singh who was accompanied by his co-accused Firoj Singh came from the side of Jhalera. It was stopped for checking. On checking 11 bags of country liquor No.1 containing 264 pouches and one gunny bag of country liquor Lal Pari brand having 50 pouches were recovered from the vehicle. The accused persons could not produce any permit or licence to carry the same. Accordingly, a case was registered against the accused. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offences, 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 his committing offences punishable under Sections 61(1)(a) of the 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 6 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the C.P.C., was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. However, he chose to lead evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned Appellate Court returned findings of acquittal upon the accused. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, standing not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation by him of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal warranting reversal by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs standing replaced by findings of conviction. 7. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal warranting reversal by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs standing replaced by findings of conviction. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has with considerable force and vigour contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the Addl. Sessions Judge 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 accused respondent No.2 Firoz Singh died during the pendency of the appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the prosecution case against him stands already abated. 10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, while reversing the findings of conviction pronounced upon the accused by the learned trial Magistrate, had anvilled his reasoning upon the factum of there occurring intra se contradictions inter se the testimonies of PW-1, PW-14 and PW-6 with respect to the number of pouches of liquor of brand “Lal Pari” and of brand “Una No.1”, as held in the relevant bags and in the relevant gunny bags. He hence proceeded to countervail the effect of the apposite recovery memo borne on Ext.PW-1/A, where under recoverys of the relevant pouches of liquor, stood effectuated from Car Indica (applied for), car whereof at the relevant time stood evidently occupied by both the accused. The aforesaid reason assigned by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, for his hence countervailing the probative worth of Ext.PW-1/A, the relevant recovery memo, is per se flimsy especially when it is not borne out by any relevant or apposite suggestions being purveyed by the defence counsel, respectively to each of the prosecution witnesses while holding them to cross-examinations suggestions whereof impinged upon the falsity of the apposite recital borne there under. It appears that the learned Addl. It appears that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge suo moto has drawn an inference that the testifications of each of the prosecution witnesses aforesaid while not holding compatibility with the apposite recitals borne in Ext.PW-1/A hence per se theirs being falsified “despite” no observation in respect thereto standing recorded by the learned trial Magistrate, during the course of the recording of their depositions, whereat the relevant pouches as stood produced in Court were shown to them “nor” any suggestions being purveyed to the PWs by the learned defence counsel while holding them to cross-examination, suggestions whereof marking/highlighting the fact of the relevant haul in respect whereof Ext.PW-1/A stood prepared, not appertaining thereto rather its preparation appertaining to a haul effectuated from the conscious and exclusive possession of persons other than the accused. In absence of the aforesaid observations being recorded by the learned trial Court, predominantly also when the learned defence counsel while holding the prosecution witnesses to cross-examination ‘not’ putting any suggestions to any of them that the relevant case property, as stood shown to them in Court, being unrelated to the recovery memo borne in Ext.PW-1/A rather its preparation being with respect to recoverys made with respect to some other F.I.R., whereupon alone the recitals borne in Ext.PW-1/A would stand falsified, whereas with the aforesaid suggestion remaining unpurveyed to the PWs by the learned defence counsel while holding them to cross-examination, thereupon it was grossly untenable for the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Una, to not relate the production in Court of the relevant case property, vis-à-vis Ext.PW-1/A nor it was tenable for him to falsify the recitals borne therein, merely on anvil of the aforesaid untenable reason, conspicuously when the discrepancy with regard to the count of apposite numbers of pouches may have arisen only on account of inadvertence with respect to the counting of pouches in Court by the PWs concerned. 11. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended with vigour that the non production in Court of the seal with which the case property was sealed at the relevant site of occurrence hence vitiating in its entirety the judgment of conviction pronounced by the learned trial Magistrate yet the aforesaid submission does not hold any vigour given there being no mandate of law that any non production in Court of the relevant seal by the official concerned or by the Investigating Officer, per se rendering vitiated the entire genesis of the prosecution witnesses. Contrarily, when the production of the apposite seal in the Court concerned, is merely a directory edict hence its non production in Court does not at all vitiate the genesis of the prosecution version. Preeminently, also with the case property standing produced in Court and thereat it being shown to the material prosecution witnesses also with the learned defence counsel despite holding the opportunity to closely sight the case property also to hold its closest scrutiny, for hence his deciphering there from whether all descriptions borne therein inclusive with respect to the apposite descriptions held in the “seal” affixed on the bags, being relatable to all the apt descriptions borne in the relevant memo, yet he has grossly omitted to avail the relevant opportunity, for making either the relevant decipherings or to hence entail the learned trial Court to record an observation qua lack of analogity emerging interse the descriptions of the seal carried on the bags vis.a.vis its recorded description in the relevant memo. Consequently, it appears that he has failed to unrelate the case property which stood produced in Court and which stood thereat shown to the prosecution witnesses “with” the one which stood recovered under Ext.PW-1/A. In sequel the case property as stood produced in Court and was thereat shown to PWs, is to be concluded to be coinciding with the one in respect whereof PW-1/A stood prepared. 12. Nowat, the effect of PW-1 an independent witness, to recovery memo Ext.PW-1/A reneging from his previous statement recorded in writing, is to stand construed along with the factum of his in his cross-examination to which he stood subjected to by the learned PP on his standing declared hostile, admitting the factum of his signatures occurring thereon. 12. Nowat, the effect of PW-1 an independent witness, to recovery memo Ext.PW-1/A reneging from his previous statement recorded in writing, is to stand construed along with the factum of his in his cross-examination to which he stood subjected to by the learned PP on his standing declared hostile, admitting the factum of his signatures occurring thereon. Consequently, when he admits the occurrence of his signatures on the relevant memo, thereupon the mandate of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act where upon he on admitting the occurrence of his signatures thereon, hence stood statutorily estopped to renege from the recitals borne thereon, thereupon the effect of his orally deposing in variance or in detraction to the recitals which occur therein, gets statutorily belittled rather when he naturally emphatically hence statutorily proves the recitals comprised in the apposite memo, his orally reneging from the recitals borne thereon holds no evidentiary clout nor it is legally apt to outweigh the creditworthiness of the testimony of the official witnesses qua the recovery of liquor under recovery memo Ext.PW-1/A standing effectuated from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, contrarily the uncontroverted factum qua his signatures occurring in the relevant exhibits, concomitantly renders the apposite recitals borne thereon to hold grave probative worth. The ensuing sequel thereof is qua with the statutory estoppel constituted in Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, barring PW- 1 to orally resile from the contents of Ext.PW-1/A especially when he admits the signatures occurring thereon to belong to him renders unworthy while besides insignificant the factum qua his orally deposing in variance of its recorded recitals, thereupon per se an inference stands enhanced qua dehors his reneging from his previous statements recorded in writing, a deduction standing capitalized qua thereupon his proving the genesis of the prosecution case. Moreover, the reason assigned by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for falsifying the recitals occurring in the Ext.PW-1/A gets counter vailled 13. Even though, one of the witnesses to recovery memo has turned hostile, hence also when the other witness thereto remained un-examined, cannot, constrain the Court to unbefittingly conclude, as untenably done by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, that it arousing an inference that the contents of Ext.PW-1/A hence remaining unproved. Even though, one of the witnesses to recovery memo has turned hostile, hence also when the other witness thereto remained un-examined, cannot, constrain the Court to unbefittingly conclude, as untenably done by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, that it arousing an inference that the contents of Ext.PW-1/A hence remaining unproved. Significantly, when the entire effect of PW-1, a witness to Ext.PW-1/A deposing in contradiction to the apposite recitals borne in F.I.R., is for reasons afore stated unworthy while. 14. The learned counsel for the accused has contended with vigour qua with the Investigating Officer concerned evidently not collecting samples from each of the liquor bottles carried in all the bags/gunny bags borne in the relevant vehicle nor his dispatching to the CTL concerned, the samples collected from each of the liquor pouches carried in all the bags borne on the relevant vehicle, for their respective examination by it, whereas with the CTL opining qua only samples of liquor extracted from some of the pouches amongst the entire cache of liquor, carried in bags or gunny bags, bags whereof were borne in the relevant vehicle, hence entailing a sequel of the prosecution succeeding in proving the opinion recorded by the CTL concerned with respect to the samples sent to it for analyzing, contrarily he contends qua the prosecution not succeeding in proving the factum of all “bags” carried in the relevant vehicle “all” there within holding liquor. However, the aforesaid submission warrants its standing discountenanced. A thorough circumspect reading of the evidence on record unravels qua the accused respondent, in his defence embodied in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. “not” unravelling therein the factum of “except” three samples extracted by the I.O. from the pouches held in the “bags” borne in the relevant vehicle, all other pouches held in the “bags” carried in the relevant vehicle “not” there within holding liquor nor also he while holding the prosecution witnesses to cross-examination, purveyed apposite suggestions qua the facet aforesaid. The effect of the aforesaid omissions, is that the accused acquiescing to the factum of all the pouches held in all the “bags” borne in the relevant vehicle holding therein liquor dehors the factum of the Investigating Officer concerned not extracting samples from all the pouches held in all “bags” borne in the relevant vehicle. 15. The effect of the aforesaid omissions, is that the accused acquiescing to the factum of all the pouches held in all the “bags” borne in the relevant vehicle holding therein liquor dehors the factum of the Investigating Officer concerned not extracting samples from all the pouches held in all “bags” borne in the relevant vehicle. 15. The learned counsel for the accused has contended with vigour that with intra-se contradictions occurring inter se the testifications of the material prosecution witnesses, with respect to the number of the relevant pouches of liquor hence per se begetting an inference, of tampering with the relevant case property by the Investigating Officer, where upon hence it is befitting to conclude that there was a concomitant enjoined necessity upon the Investigating Officer to send to the CTL concerned “samples” extracted from all the pouches carried in all the gunny bags and in the bags borne on the relevant vehicle whereupon alone, upon an affirmative opinion being pronounced by the CTL upon all the samples, would constrain a conclusion that the entire cache of liquor “pouches” carried in the vehicle holding liquor there with in. However, the aforesaid submission is rejected, as (a) the learned defence counsel while holding each of the prosecution witnesses to cross examination has neither put suggestions apposite thereto, comprised in the fact that the pouches held in the bags and in the gunny bags not holding therein contents of liquor, contrarily theirs holding milk, juice or water besides the defence counsel omitted to adduce in defence the best documentary evidence comprised in bills appertaining to purchase by him of pouches of juice, milk or water whereupon alone a vivid display would occur that the relevant pouches held therein contents of water, juice or milk. In absence of the aforesaid suggestions besides want of the aforesaid best evidence, begets an inference of the defence acquiescing that all the relevant bags/gunny bags were holding pouches wherein liquor was carried, thereupon there was no necessity for the Investigating Officer to either extract samples from all the pouches or to send them for analyses to the CTL concerned. It appears that the learned counsel for the accused has hence made an idle submission, that the case property was tampered, without their occurring any apposite suggestions in respect there to. 16. It appears that the learned counsel for the accused has hence made an idle submission, that the case property was tampered, without their occurring any apposite suggestions in respect there to. 16. For the reasons which have been recorded here in above, this Court holds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart there from the analysis of the material on record by the learned Addl. 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 the appeal, which is accordingly allowed and the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, is quashed and set-aside. Judgment of the learned trial Court is upheld Accordingly, the accused is held guilty for his committing offences punishable under Sections 16(i)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The judgment of conviction and sentence pronounced by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, is affirmed and upheld. In aftermath, the pronouncement recorded by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate in Case No. 98-III-2001 be forth with put to execution.