JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. Both these appeals have been preferred by the State against common judgment dated 10.1.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Cr. Appeals No. 52-S/10 of 2007 and 34-S/10 of 2007, whereby conviction and sentence imposed upon the respondents vide judgment dated 15/16.6.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Theog, District Shimla in Case No. 96/3 of 2004 in Case FIR No. 91 of 2004 dated 17.6.2004 registered in police Station Theog under Section 61(1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been reversed and respondents have been acquitted. 2. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General for the State as well as Shri Dalip K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that SHO P.S. Theog Raghubir Singh (not examined) along with PW-7 HC Devinder Kumar, PW-1 Kishori Lal and PW-3 Narender Parkash was on patrol duty at Balag-Kuthar link road. At about 1.45 AM, a Mahindra Pick up bearing No. HP-51A-9171 covered with tarpaulin was noticed coming from Neripul side. On signal by SHO to stop, the driver of said vehicle stopped the vehicle for a moment and then immediately drove the same towards Sainj Chhaila side in high speed. The said vehicle was chased by the police party in their official vehicle being driven by PW-5 Sunder Lal. Despite chasing it for a long distance, the police party could not take over the said vehicle and at the last, occupants of the pick-up left it on the side of the road and fled away by taking advantage of the darkness. On search of vehicle, police party found 85 boxes containing 1020 bottles of country liquor having mark Hiro No. 1 in it. All these boxes, after taking one bottle each as a sample from seven boxes, were sealed with seal 'K' and taken in possession vide memo Ext.PA-1 to Ext.PA-85. The samples were seized separately. It is further case of prosecution that pick-up van was unlocked with the help of key of official vehicle and from its dash board, registration certificate and insurance policy of the vehicle were recovered. The samples were seized separately. It is further case of prosecution that pick-up van was unlocked with the help of key of official vehicle and from its dash board, registration certificate and insurance policy of the vehicle were recovered. Vehicle and liquor were taken in possession vide memos Ext.PW-5/A and Ext.PW-7/B. It is further case of prosecution that it was mid night time and a lonely place, therefore, independent witnesses could not be associated and the search and seizure procedure was completed by associating official witnesses present on the spot. Ruka Ext.PW-4/A prepared and sent to police station Theog, on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW-6/A was registered by PW-6 Bali Bhadar. During investigation, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. site map was prepared, liquor bottles were sent for chemical examination to CTL Kandaghat and after receiving the chemical analysis report, challan was presented in Court. 4. After completion of trial, respondents were convicted by the trial Court and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in case of default in paying fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. 5. In appeals preferred separately by respondents, learned Sessions Judge has acquitted them, hence the present appeals. 6. PW-7 HC Devinder Kumar, PW-1 C. Kishori Lal, PW-3 Narender Parkash, PW-5 C. Sunder Lal had been examined as spot witnesses. Even the entire story of prosecution is believed, there is no evidence on record to connect the respondents with the liquor recovered by the police party. PW-1 in his examination in chief has categorically stated that he could not identify the driver and another person sitting with him in the pick-up as it was dark night at that time and therefore, he could not see them. PW-3 Narender Parkash is completely silent about identification of respondents in his examination-in-chief. Though, in cross examination, he stated that he had identified accused as respondent Dimple was driving the vehicle. But his statement is not inspiring confidence for the reason that he has further stated that at that time besides police officials, there were two independent witnesses present at the spot and from where they were called was not in his knowledge. Whereas, it is the case of prosecution that no independent witness could be associated due to mid night time and lonely place of incident. Whereas, it is the case of prosecution that no independent witness could be associated due to mid night time and lonely place of incident. PW-5 C. Sunder Lal is again silent about identification of the respondents. PW-7 HC Devinder. He has narrated the entire prosecution case except disclosing that how and on what basis the respondents were identified as the persons occupying the vehicle involved in the commission of alleged offence. Investigating Officer Ravinder Kumar has not been examined. 7. According to PW-2 Baldev Singh, respondent Dimple had produced key and documents of the vehicle to the Investigating Officer Ravinder Kumar, which were taken in possession vide memo Ext.PW-2/A. But said Investigating Officer Ravinder Kumar has not been examined. The deposition of PW-2 Baldev Singh is contradictory to the prosecution case as stated by other witnesses including PW-7 HC Devinder Kumar that documents of vehicle i.e. RC and insurance were taken in possession vide memo Ext.PW-5/B from dash board of the cabin of pick-up after opening its lock with the help of key of the official vehicle. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. respondent Dimple has admitted that he had produced his driving licence to the police but refused that he had produced the key of vehicle. PW-7, who narrated whole prosecution case in his deposition is also silent in this regard. 8. SHO Raghubir Singh was heading the police party but he has also not been examined. As the investigation has been conducted by other police official, his examination may not be considered necessary as it is not compulsory to examine all the witnesses but so far as examination of PW- Ravinder Kumar, investigating officer is concerned, probably who might have something to say to connect the respondents with commission of offence was definitely necessary to be examined. For non-examination of the said witness, the State has to suffer adverse inference presuming that there was nothing with the prosecution to connect the respondents with commission of offence. 9. Further, the prosecution is relying upon the chemical analysis report received from CTL Kandaghat. Though there is statement of PW-6 Maan Dev (wrongly numbered as PW-6) wherein he has stated that sample liquor bottles were sent for chemical analysis to CTL Kandaghat through LC Uma Devi, but said Uma Devi has also not been examined. 9. Further, the prosecution is relying upon the chemical analysis report received from CTL Kandaghat. Though there is statement of PW-6 Maan Dev (wrongly numbered as PW-6) wherein he has stated that sample liquor bottles were sent for chemical analysis to CTL Kandaghat through LC Uma Devi, but said Uma Devi has also not been examined. Not only this, the chemical analysis report received from CTL Kandaghat has also not been proved on record by exhibiting the same. Therefore, there is no legally admissible evidence on record so as to prove that sample sent for chemical analysis was a country liquor, much less to prove that bottles taken in possession in 85 boxes were containing the country liquor. 10. Investigating Officer was not examined and prosecution has not bothered to exhibit the site map of incident. Though PW-7 in his statement has tried to fill up the gap of non-examination of Investigating Officer but in cross examination, he had stated that reason for non-joining the independent witnesses could have been disclosed by the Investigating Officer. He has further stated that he could not identify the respondents by face. It is not the prosecution case that respondents were chased by police party when they fled from the spot abandoning the vehicle but PW-7 has added in his cross examination that they had chased the respondents for a some distance. 11. In view of above discussion, I find that important link to hold the respondents' guilty for commission of offence for which they were charge sheeted is missing. Even the recovered material i.e. liquor has not been proved by leading cogent and reliable evidence. Therefore, the appeals must fail. I find no infirmity or illegality in the findings returned by learned Sessions Judge, rather he has rightly acquitted the respondents after appreciating the evidence completely and correctly. In the light of evidence on record, it cannot be said that impugned judgment has caused miscarriage of justice or resulted into travesty of justice. 12. Accordingly, appeals are dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents stand discharged. Record of the trial Court be also sent back forthwith.