JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 31.03.2009, passed in Criminal Appeal No.45-S/10 of 08/07, titled as Bimla Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh, by learned Sessions Judge, (Forest) Shimla, (HP), whereby conviction and sentence imposed upon respondent by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Theog, vide judgment dated 19.03.2007, passed in Case No.23-3 of 2006, titled as State of H.P. versus Bimla Devi, in case FIR No.146/2005, dated 21.10.2005, registered in Police Station Theog, under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to State of Himachal Pradesh, (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Excise Act’) has been reversed. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.10.2005, at about 4.45 p.m., on receiving a telephonic information in Police Post Fagu from an unknown person that a lady is coming from Theog side in a car bearing registration No. HP-09A-1348, loaded with boxes of wine, PW-4 Head Constable Subhash Kumar constituted a raiding party by associating PW-1 Rajinder Singh, PW-2 Lady Constable Meena Devi, PW-3 Prabha Devi and Constable Kamal Dev (not examined) and reached at Fagu Mour (curve). At about 5.00 p.m., respondent came in car from Theog side. On stopping and checking the vehicle, nine boxes of wine, each containing 12 bottles of ‘Lal Kila’ country liquor, were found on the rear seat of the car. Respondent could not produce any licence or permit for transporting the said liquor, therefore, the same was seized after taking five bottles as sample, one from each box. All sample bottles were also sealed in the presence of witnesses. Case property was taken in possession vide Memo Ext. PW-1/A. Rukka Ext. PW-4/A was prepared and sent to Police Station Theog, resulting into registration of FIR Ext. PW-4/B. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. Site Plan-Ext. PW-4/C was prepared. The recovered liquor alongwith sample was deposited in Malkhana of the Police Station through PW-5 MHC Man Dev. The sample bottles were sent for chemical examination to CTL Kandaghat through PW-6 Lady Constable Rachna. On receiving the report Ext. PW/4/E from CTL Kandaghat, challan was prepared and presented in the Court. 3. On conclusion of trial, Trial Court had convicted accused/respondent and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. The sample bottles were sent for chemical examination to CTL Kandaghat through PW-6 Lady Constable Rachna. On receiving the report Ext. PW/4/E from CTL Kandaghat, challan was prepared and presented in the Court. 3. On conclusion of trial, Trial Court had convicted accused/respondent and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 4. In appeal preferred by respondent, learned Sessions Judge (Forest) Shimla has acquitted her. 5. I have heard lMr. Raju Ram Rahi, learned Deputy Advocate General and Ms. Aruna Chauhan, learned Counsel for respondent and gone through the record. 6. Prosecution has examined six witnesses to prove its case. After recording statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), respondent has not chosen to lead any evidence in her defence. 7. PW-4 Head Constable Subhash Kumar is the Investigating Officer. PW-1 Rajinder Singh and PW-3 Prabha Devi are independent witnesses associated in the raiding party. PW-2 Lady Constable Meena Devi is an official witness, who was also associated in the raiding party. PW-5 MHC Man Dev had received the case property in the police station and had sent sample bottles for chemical examination through PW-6 Lady Constable Rachna. 8. PW-1 Rajinder Singh has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile for resiling his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. In cross-examination, though, he had admitted his signatures on Memo of Recovery Ext. PW-1/A, but in examination-in-chief, he categorically stated that he was called in Police Station Theog, where vehicle and liquor were there, but respondent or any other person was not there. 9. Now, the statements of other two witnesses PW-2 and PW-3, members of raiding party, require to be scrutinized for considering the rival contentions of the parties. 10. PW-2 has corroborated the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief. PW-3 in her examination-in-chief, except deposing the timing of the incident as 10.00 a.m instead of 5.00 p.m., has also corroborated the prosecution case. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that as per PW-2 Constable Meena Devi, PW-1 Rajinder Singh and PW-3 Prabha Devi, were associated in the raiding party in Fagu Bazar. PW-3 in her examination-in-chief, except deposing the timing of the incident as 10.00 a.m instead of 5.00 p.m., has also corroborated the prosecution case. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that as per PW-2 Constable Meena Devi, PW-1 Rajinder Singh and PW-3 Prabha Devi, were associated in the raiding party in Fagu Bazar. She further stated that PW-3 Prabha Devi in her cross-examination had stated that besides three police officials, she was also present on the spot, whereas prosecution case is that there were five persons on the spot. Further, she has pointed out that PW-3 in her examination-in-chief categorically stated that only she was called by the police and none else was called on the spot by the police. According to her, these contradictions are material and sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution story. 12. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant has submitted that prosecution case stands proved beyond reasonable doubts from the statements of PWs-2, 3 & 4 and the fact that recovered bottles were containing liquor, has also proved from the Chemical Examiner’s report Ext. PW-4/E, wherein the liquor sent for chemical examination was found to be country liquor, containing 50.0% proof of alcohol strength in each bottle and except minor contradictions in the statement of PW-3 with regard to time of occurrence, there is complete corroboration of the prosecution case by the spot witnesses. 13. Learned Counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the judgment passed by this High Court in cases titled as Dharam Pal and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2009 (2) Shimla Law Cases, 208; State of H.P. versus Ramesh Chand, reported in Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1017 and Joginder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in Latest HLJ 2017 (HP) 118, for substantiating her plea that even the prosecution case is accepted as it is, the respondent cannot be held liable for transporting 108 bottles, as only 5 bottles were sent for chemical examination. According to her, the respondent was entitled for possession of six bottles of IMFS of 750 ml each and 24 bottles of bear of 650 ml each, at one time, as mentioned in note appended to order dated 29.03.1985, quoted in para-11 of the Joginder Singh’s judgment, supra. 14. According to her, the respondent was entitled for possession of six bottles of IMFS of 750 ml each and 24 bottles of bear of 650 ml each, at one time, as mentioned in note appended to order dated 29.03.1985, quoted in para-11 of the Joginder Singh’s judgment, supra. 14. Plea of learned Counsel for respondent based on the judgments in Dharam Pal’s, Ramesh Chand’s and Joginder Singh’s cases (supra) is misconceived. In para 11 of the aforesaid judgment, order issued on 29.03.1985 by the Governor of Himachal Pradesh, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 5 and 58 of the Excise Act, has been reproduced and in the said order, maximum quantity of intoxicant, which can be sold in each transaction in retail sale under the Excise Act, has been prescribed, which reads as under :- “(1) Foreign spirit Two bottles each of the capacity of 750 ml. (2) Beer whether imported or made in India Twelve bottles each of the capacity of 650 ml. (3) Cider (liquor manufactured by fermentation of juice of any fruit) imported or made in India. Six quarter bottles (4) Country liquor Two bottles each of the capacity of 750 ml. (5) Country fermented Liquor. six quart bottles (6) Bhang 100 grams (7) Rectified spirit One pint of 375 ml. (8) Denatured spirit One bottle of 650 ml. Note-The limit of transportation mentioned at items Nos. (1) and (2) above shall be alternative with the limit mentioned at Item No. (4) : Provided that a person may for bona fide consumption by him, the members of his family, or his guest, purchase, transport and possess foreign spirit up to 12 bottles of the capacity of 750 ml each inclusive of imported spirit and 36 bottles of the capacity of 650 ml each of Beer on the authority of a permit in Form L-50 granted by the Excise Officer, holding the charge of the District, on payment of a permit fee according to the following scale for a financial year or part thereof :- Quantity Permit fee Exceeding six bottles of IMFS of 750 ml each and 12 bottles of 650 ml each of Beer but not exceeding 12 bottles of IMFS and 36 bottles of Beer. Fifty rupees only Note:- The possession limit by one family living in a separate and distinct premises will be six bottles of IMFS of 750 ml each and 24 bottles of Beer of 650 ml each at one time. Imported liquor will be considered as part of stocks of IMFS and bottles of foreign liquor which may be of one litre or two litres will be converted, for this purpose, to the limits prescribed for IMFS in 750 ml bottles. Provided further that in case of possession and purchase of denatured spirit for industrial purposes, a permit may be obtained from the Excise Officers of the 1st Class as declared by the State Government.” (Emphasis supplied} 15. In the aforesaid order, at Serial No. (4), volume of country liquor permissible to be sold to a person in retail has been prescribed as two bottles each of the capacity of 750 ml. 16. So far as the possession limit of six bottles is concerned, that has been prescribed in the note for a family and for that reason in Dharam Pal’s, Ramesh Chand’s and Joginder Singh’s cases (supra) and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, the prescribed limit of six bottles for each family, was made basis for acquittal of accused, whereas in the present case, respondent-Bimla Devi was transporting 108 bottles in her car, having no document for doing so. Even if, only five bottles sent for chemical examination are taken to be proved in possession of respondents, the said quantity is also beyond permissible limit. Both notes to the order dated 29.03.1985 (supra) are to be read conjunctively and proviso to first note provides requirement of permit from District Excise Officer for such possession, also. 17. So far as variation in time, as stated by PW-3 Prabha Devi is concerned, the accident was of 21.10.2005 and she was examined in the Court on 01.09.2006 and such contradiction after such a long time may be natural and bound to occur for the reason that every person has different capacity of reception, retention and re-collection and also capability of narration of the incident after passage of time. 18. So far as statement of PW-2 Meena Devi is concerned, she has stated that PW-1 Rajinder Singh and PW-3 Prabha Devi were associated in the raiding party. 18. So far as statement of PW-2 Meena Devi is concerned, she has stated that PW-1 Rajinder Singh and PW-3 Prabha Devi were associated in the raiding party. She has not stated at what place, they were associated or they were associated simultaneously or by calling through different persons. It stands clarified in statement of PW-14-Investigating Officer, who has categorically stated that PW-3 Prabha Devi was called through Constable Kamal Dev, whereas PW-1 Rajinder Singh was called by him. 19. In the light of this fact, the statement of PW-3 Prabha Devi that except her, none else was called, is not contradictory in nature. Constable Kamal Dev had called only her and none else and thus, she has not stated anything contrary to the prosecution case by making such statement. In her cross-examination, she has specifically stated that Rajinder Singh was also present at Fagu at that time. Though, in cross-examination, she has stated that there were three police officials and she was also present there. This deposition is in answer to the questions put to her by learned defence Counsel and definitely, to the question as to how many police officials, besides her, were on the spot, the answer would have been that she and three police officials were present on the spot. No question has been put to her to contradict her statement made in examination-in-chief that Rajinder Singh was not present on the spot. 20. Depositing of recovered liquor in the Malkhana as well as sending of sample bottles to the CTL Kandaghat and depositing the same there without any tempering, has been established by the statements of PW-5 MHC Man Dev and PW-6 LC Rachna and in their cross-examination, there is nothing to doubt the veracity of their testimony. Undisputed Chemical Analysis Report Ext. PW-4/E has established that sample sent for examination was country liquor. Respondent has failed to place on record any permit or authority to transport the same. 21. In view of the above discussion, I find that in the light of the evidence on record, no other view except that respondent was found transporting country liquor beyond permissible limit without valid documents and was apprehended by the police on 21.10.2005, is possible in the present case. Therefore, respondent is held guilty for the offence charged and sentence and conviction imposed upon respondent by the trial Court is upheld. Therefore, respondent is held guilty for the offence charged and sentence and conviction imposed upon respondent by the trial Court is upheld. Judgment of acquittal passed by learned Sessions Judge is set aside. 22. At this stage, learned Counsel for respondent submits that the accident is of 13 years’ old and respondent is a poor lady, belonging to a down trodden class of the society and by the passage of time, her social and family responsibility have also increased. There is no other case of involving her after the incident in the present case and at the time of the incident, she was 40 years old, now at the age of 55 years, it would not be in the interest of justice to impose substantial sentence upon her and thus, extension of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act as prayed before Trial Court, be extended to her. 23. Plea of extension of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act was rejected by Trial Court keeping in view the nature of offence and also the fact that one more case was found to be registered against her for committing the similar offence. Therefore, I am also of the opinion that respondent is not entitled for benefit of Probation of Offenders Act. However, keeping in view the fact that she has suffered trauma of facing the criminal trial for about 13 years and particularly as a convict since 19.03.2007 to 31.03.2009 and the pronouncement made by this Court in Dharam Pal’s, Ramesh Chand’s and Joginder Singh’s cases (supra) relied upon by the respondent and as the recovery of only five bottles stands established, it would be sufficient to maintain the sentence only for imposition of fine as already imposed by the trial court, which is maximum provided under the Excise Act and not to send her for imprisonment. The sentence imposed upon respondent by the Trial Court is modified accordingly. 24. It is stated by learned Counsel for respondent that fine stands already deposited in the Trial Court at the time of appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. In case, the fine has not been deposited, the same be deposited within six weeks and in default of depositing the fine, respondent has to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 25. Bail bonds furnished by and on behalf of respondent stand cancelled. 26. In case, the fine has not been deposited, the same be deposited within six weeks and in default of depositing the fine, respondent has to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 25. Bail bonds furnished by and on behalf of respondent stand cancelled. 26. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of in above terms, so also the pending applications, if any. Records be sent back.