JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —Since both the criminal revision and appeal arise out of the common judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge (Forest) , Shimla, on 04.05.2009, these were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. The parties shall be referred to as the accused and the State. 2. The prosecution story is that on 05.11.2004, SI/SHO Chaman Lal along with ASI Gulam Akbar and few police constables and Head constable Satya Parkash, was on patrol duty. When they reached near ''Menas Curve'' at about 9.00 a.m., one Canter truck bearing No. HP-63-0883 followed by a white Maruti Car without any number came there and did not stop when signalled by the police. The vehicles were driven towards Gumma at a high speed and the same were chased by the police officials. The driver of the Maruti Car along with his companion managed to escape, whereas, the driver and conductor of the Canter were apprehended. On enquiry from them, police came to know about the names of all the four accused. Thereafter, the Car and Canter were checked and were found to contain 115 boxes of ''Lal Qila'' country liquor each box containing 12 bottles, 28 boxes of Director Special Whisky, 10 boxes of Bag Piper Whisky and 9 boxes of Hayward Beer, each box containing 12 bottles. The accused persons were asked to produce route permit, but they failed to do so. Thereafter, six ''pawas'' of ''Lal Qila'' country liquor, eight ''pawas'' of Director Special Whisky, four ''pawas'' of Bag Piper Whisky, all 180 ml. each and six bottles of Hayward Beer of 650 ml. each, were drawn as samples. The recovered liquor and samples were sealed with seal impression ''A'' and taken into possession vide recovery memo. The seals were handed over to HC Satya Parkash. The recovered liquor and samples were deposited with the MHC at Police Station and the samples thereafter were sent for chemical analysis. As per report of the Chemical Analyst, the sample bottles contained alcohol and as such the accused were challaned and produced before the learned trial Court. 3. After completion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each with a fine of Rs. As per report of the Chemical Analyst, the sample bottles contained alcohol and as such the accused were challaned and produced before the learned trial Court. 3. After completion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 61(1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act (as applicable to the State of H.P.) . 4. On an appeal filed by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge modified the trial Court judgment of conviction and sentence and reduced the sentence of each of the accused to one month simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the commission of the aforesaid offence. 5. The accused have filed the criminal revision assailing their conviction and sentence, whereas, the State has filed an appeal assailing the modification of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 6. Shri Vishal Panwar, learned counsel for the accused would vehemently argue that the accused are entitled to be acquitted, as admittedly no independent witnesses were produced, even the report in the Roznamcha was not produced and, above all, seal as is alleged to have been affixed, was also not produced before the Court. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, would argue that the judgment of conviction and sentence as passed by the learned Magistrate was exceptional and, therefore, could not have been modified by the learned Sessions Judge. 8. As regards the non-association of the independent witnesses, it is settled law that conviction can be based solely on the basis of the testimonies of the official witnesses whose credibility has to be tested on the touchstone of trustworthiness. The testimony of police officials is to be considered at par with independent public witnesses and in absence of any serious infirmity or inconsistency, has to be believed. The testimony of police officials is to be considered at par with independent public witnesses and in absence of any serious infirmity or inconsistency, has to be believed. The witnesses have no ulterior motive to falsely implicate the accused, more particularly, when it has come on record that these witnesses were not acquainted with the accused prior to the prosecution case. Presumption is that every witness is impartial and independent unless proved contrary. Therefore, wherever evidence of police officials after careful scrutiny inspires confidence and it is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and no infirmity attaches to their testimony merely they belong to the police. Moreover, there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence, such reliable and trustworthy statement can form the basis of conviction. (Refer: Aher Raja Khima vs. State of Saurashtra , (1956) AIR(Supreme Court) 217, Tahir vs. State (Delhi) , (1996) 3 SCC 338 , Girija Prasad (dead by Lrs) vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2007) 7 SCC 625 , Tika Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , (2007) 15 SCC 760, Govinda Raju alias Govinda vs. State of Sriramapuram Police Station and another , (2012) 4 SCC 722 ) . 9. There is nothing on record to suggest or even remotely doubt the testimony of the police officials whose statements otherwise cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the witnesses happen to be the police officials and were the members of the raiding party. (Refer: Sama Alana Abdulla vs. State of Gujarat , (1996) 1 SCC 427) . 10. Adverting to the facts of the case, it would be noticed that the recovery in this case has been duly proved by PW-2 constable Ratti Ram, who has stated that at the relevant time, he along with SHO Chaman Lal and other police officials was on patrol duty and when they reached near ''Menas Curve'', one truck bearing No. HP-63-0883 and a car bearing no registration number (applied for) came there. Even though, both the vehicles were signalled to stop, but they did not and had to be chased by the police personnel. Even though, both the vehicles were signalled to stop, but they did not and had to be chased by the police personnel. The driver of the truck and his accomplice were apprehended, whereas, driver of the car along with his companion managed to escape. According to this witness, the truck contained 115 boxes of ''Lal Qila'' country liquor, 28 boxes of Director Special Whisky, 10 boxes of Bag Piper Whisky and 9 boxes of Hayward Beer. According to him, all the boxes contained 12 bottles each and the quantity of liquor was measured 750 ml. in each bottle. He also deposed that six sample bottles were taken from ''Lal Qila'', four bottles from Director Special Whisky, four bottles from Bag Piper and four bottles from Hayward Beer and then the sample bottles as well as remaining liquor were sealed and the seal after use was handed over to H.C. Satya Parkash and the recovered liquor was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/A. 11. To similar effect is the statement of PW-3 SHO Chaman Lal which is corroborated by PW-5 ASI Gulam Akbar and PW-6 HC Satya Parkash. All these witnesses have been cross examined at length, but nothing adverse could be extracted from them so as to cast any doubt much less a grave doubt in the testimonies of these witnesses. This aspect of the matter has been minutely discussed by the learned trial Magistrate as also by the learned Sessions Judge and since there is no perversity in such findings, the same warrant no interference by this Court while exercising revisionary jurisdiction. 12. However, the fact still remains as to what is the quantity of liquor that has actually been proved to be recovered from the possession of the accused. From the records, it is evident that the specific case of the prosecution was that it had recovered 115 boxes of ''Lal Qila'' country liquor each box containing 12 bottles, 28 boxes of Director Special Whisky, 10 boxes of Bag Piper Whisky and 9 boxes of Hayward Beer, each box containing 12 bottles of 750 ml each, whereas, admittedly six ''pawas'' i.e. quarters of ''Lal Qila'' country liquor, eight quarters of Director Special Whisky, four quarters of Bag Piper Whisky, all 180 ml. each and six bottles of Hayward Beer of 650 ml. each and six bottles of Hayward Beer of 650 ml. each, were sent for chemical analysis and even what stands proved on record is the recovery of those bottles which infact were sent for chemical analysis. Therefore, assuming that the contraband was actually recovered by the prosecution, it did not take samples from all the bottles and only took aforesaid ''pawas''/bottles as samples. Therefore, there is nothing on record to actually prove that the remaining bottles in the cartons that were recovered actually contain liquor. The bottles of each of the brand that were sent for sampling cannot be said to be representative in character. 13. In similar circumstances, this Court in Mahajan versus State of Himachal Pradesh , (2003) CriLJ 1346; State of H.P. versus Ramesh Chand, 2007 2 LatestHLJ 1017; State of H.P. versus Jagjit Singh , (2008) 2 LatestHLJ 919 (HP) , Dharam Pal and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh , (2009) 2 ShimLC 208 ; and State of Himachal Pradesh versus Kuldeep Singh & others, 2010 2 HimLR 825 , Surender Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh , (2013) 2 LatestHLJ 865 (HP) , Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2007, titled Jagat Ram versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 08.05.2013, Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2009, titled Sanjeev Kumar and others versus State of H.P., decided on 25.10.2016 and Criminal Revision No.4 of 2010, titled Subhash versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 20.03.2018, has acquitted the accused, as the prosecution could not prove, beyond reasonable doubt, as to what actually was there in the remaining boxes. 14. Thus, what at best can be said to have been proved on record is the recovery of six quarters of ''Lal Qila'' country liquor, eight quarters of Director Special Whisky, four quarters of Bag Piper Whisky, all 180 ml. each and six bottles of Hayward Beer of 650 ml. each. 15. Thus, the total quantity of liquor that was recovered from the four accused works out to be 3240 ml. and in case the individual quantity of liquor per person is worked out, then the same comes to 810 ml. per person which is much below the legal quantity of liquor that one can carry. Obviously, therefore, the accused cannot be convicted for being in possession of the liquor that is within the permissible limit as envisaged under the Punjab Excise Act. 16. per person which is much below the legal quantity of liquor that one can carry. Obviously, therefore, the accused cannot be convicted for being in possession of the liquor that is within the permissible limit as envisaged under the Punjab Excise Act. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the accused is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, is set aside and the accused are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 61(1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act (as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh) , whereas, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused stand discharged.