JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed by the State against the judgment rendered, on 18.02.2008, by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P., upon, Criminal Appeal No. 7-S/10 of 2007, whereby, he set aside the judgement of conviction, and, sentence recorded, upon, the accused/respondent herein, by the learned trial Court. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that on July 22, 2006, at about 3.10 p.m., Up Pradhan Shri Narain Datt Sharma, Gram Panchayat Khatnol, informed the police of Police Station Dhalli, telephonically that the villagers had caused a person, who states himself to be an Inspector and seems to be a suspect. It is averred that on the aforesaid information, Inspector Vijay Sharma along with other police officials proceeded to village Khatnol. On reaching the spot, Lal Chand made a statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., to the effect that on the aforesaid date at about 2 or 2.30 p.m., he was present in his shop and one person came there and demanded cold drinks from him. It is averred that he gave him two bottles of cold drinks and the latter asked for the price of the cold drinks which was disclosed at the rate of Rs.11/- per bottle. The latter told that he was selling the same at higher price than the prescribed rate. It was reported that the accused had disclosed to him that he is Food and Supplies Inspector and he can fine upto Rs.10,000/-. It was reported that said person asked for suitable treatment and then he will leave him. Upon this, the complainant paid him a sum of Rs.500/- and the accused had stated that it is quite less amount. Then, the complainant again paid him a sum of Rs.100/- and, in all, paid a sum of Rs.600/-. It is reported that the complainant got suspicious about that person and accordingly, he had informed Prakash Thakur, who asked for the identity card from the accused. Then the accused had shown his Pan Card. In the mean time, many people had gathered there and the accused after seeing the gathering, ran away in his maruti van bearing No.HP-01-0420 towards Devla and he was chased and was apprehended at Devla by stopping the van. Then the accused had shown his Pan Card. In the mean time, many people had gathered there and the accused after seeing the gathering, ran away in his maruti van bearing No.HP-01-0420 towards Devla and he was chased and was apprehended at Devla by stopping the van. It is reported that he was inquired and on inquiry, he disclosed his name as Balam Singh, dismissed peon from the office of Food and Supplies Department. Upon this statement, FIR was registered in the police station concerned and the police completed all the codal formalities. 3. On conclusion of the investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused/respondent herein stood charged by the learned trial Court, for his committing offences, punishable under Section 170 and Section 420, of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, he claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction upon the accused/respondent herein, for his committing an offence punishable under Sections 170 of the IPC, however, it acquitted the accused for charge under Section 420, IPC. In an appeal preferred therefrom, by the accused/respondent herein, before, the learned Sessions Judge concerned, the latter reversed the apposite findings of conviction, and, sentence recorded in the judgment, pronounced, by the learned trial Court. 6. The State of H.P., stands aggrieved, by the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge concerned, in dis-concurrence vis-a-vis the judgment, of conviction recorded against him, by the learned trial Court. The learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the appellant herein, has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned Sessions Judge concerned, standing not based on a proper appreciation, by him, 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 rather warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal rather warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by him, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any 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 prosecution, for proving the genesis of the case, borne in the apposite FIR, Ex.PW8/A, primarily depended upon the testifications, of, PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, and, PW-6. Through the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution concerts, to prove the trite factum, (a) of the accused by impersonating himself, as an Inspector in the Food and Civil Supplies Department, his extorting a sum of Rs.600/- from PW-1, (b) besides the testifications of the aforesaid PWs, the prosecution also depended, upon, exhibits P-3 to P-41, exhibits whereof comprise the articles unearthed, from, the possession of the accused, upon his being subjected, to jama-talasi, whereafter memo borne in Ex.PW2/A, hence, stood prepared. Furthermore, the prosecution for proving the charge against the accused, depended upon memo, borne in Ex.PW2/B, whereunder, 5 kgs of sugar stood recovered from the maruti van, occupied, at the relevant time, by the accused. 10. Be that as it may, before proceeding to impute sanctity to the aforesaid incriminatory evidence existing on record, it is imperative to also bear in mind the trite factum, that, (a) unless the respectively rendered testifications by PWs aforesaid, are, unbereft of any intra se or inter se contradictions, (b) and, unless each of the prosecution witnesses while rendering their respective testification(s), theirs neither improving nor embellishing, upon, their previously recorded statements in writing, (c) thereupon, alone solemn sanctity is enjoined to be imputed, to their respectively rendered testifications. While bearing in mind, the aforesaid principle, for hence imputing, vigour, to the respectively rendered testifications, by the prosecution witnesses, an allusion to the testification of PW-1 is significant, (d) wherein, he makes a disclosure, of, his handing over two bottles of Coca Cola, to the accused, and, his also asking the accused to defray to him Rs.11/- per bottle to him, being the labelled rate of each bottle. However, upon the aforesaid labelled rate of two bottles of Coca Cola, being demanded, by PW-1, from the accused, evidently a wrangle ensued inter se both, and, evidently thereat a threat was meted by the accused, qua his reporting the factum of overcharging, to the authorities concerned. PW-1 continues to testify, of the accused, demanding a sum of Rs.600/-, from him, for suppressing the aforesaid factum. The aforesaid echoing by PW-1, of the accused, demanding a sum of Rs.600/- from him, for suppressing the factum of his purportedly overcharging, from him, for two bottles of Coca Cola, is, ipso facto per se personificatory, of PW-1 conceding, to his overcharging for two bottles of Coca Cola, purchased from him, by the accused, (e) and, also his echoing, of, a sum of Rs.600/- being purportedly given by him, to the accused, on the latter's demand, for his hence suppressing the trite factum, of, his overcharging, is, also a tangible piece of evidence, (f) qua hence of PW-1 contorting besides twisting, the factum of the accused extorting a sum, of Rs.600/-, from him, and, also his concomitantly inducing him to deliver him a sum of Rs.600/-, by impersonating himself, to be an Inspector in the Food and Civil Supplies Department. Even the learned trial Magistrate concerned, recorded, findings of acquittal in favour of the accused qua the charge framed against him under Section 420 of the IPC, and, with the State not challenging, the acquittal pronounced by the learned trial Magistrate qua the charge framed against him under Section 420 of the IPC, thereupon, the findings of acquittal, recorded by the trial magistrate qua the charge framed against the accused, under Section 420 of the IPC, acquires conclusivity, (i) further corollary thereof, being, of, with there being close interconnectivity inter se the charge of impersonation, and, of PW-1 being induced, to hence deliver a sum of Rs.600/-, vis-a-vis the accused, thereupon, the effect, of, findings of acquittal recorded qua the charge framed under Section 420 of the IPC, against, the accused, hence, acquiring conclusivity, also gives enhanced momentum to a conclusion of PW-1, for all the reasons aforestated rather prevaricating the factum of his delivering a sum of Rs.600/-, to, the accused. 11. The testification rendered by PW-5 is obviously an improvement besides a gross embellishment vis-a-vis his previously recorded statement in writing, especially with his, in his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., omitting to make any voicing therein, of the accused hence demanding a sum of Rs.600/- from him, for avoiding his being challaned. The testification of PW-6 alike the testification of PW-5, is ridden with a vice of embellishment besides gross improvement vis-a-vis his previously recorded statement in writing, conspicuously, with his acquiescing in his cross-examination, of the accused liquidating to him, the entire payment(s) vis-a-vis all the articles purchased by him, from his shop. 12. Be that as it may, nowat PW-3 wherefromwhose commercial establishment, the accused by impersonating himself, to be an Inspector in the Food and Civil Supplies department, hence, induced him, to deliver 5 kgs of sugar, in respect whereof memo borne in Ex.PW2/B was prepared, rather, in his crossexamination making an apt acquiescence vis-a-vis an affirmative suggestion, of his omitting to record the aforestated factum, in his previously recorded statement, under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., (I) thereupon, renders his testification vis-a-vis the aforestated fact, to be ridden with an entrenched vice, of embellishments besides improvements, whereupon, it is rendered incredible. The aforesaid analysis, of, the evidence, of, Pws concerned, underscores the factum of the respectively rendered testifications by all Pws concerned, being incredible, therefrom, it is inevitable to conclude of the prosecution abysmally failing to prove the charge against the accused. 13. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned Sessions Judge concerned has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned Sessions Judge concerned does not suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. 14. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.