JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. By way of present appeal filed under S.378 Cr.P.C., challenge has been laid to the Judgment of acquittal dated 13.10.2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Cr. Appeal No. 3-S/10 of 2006, reversing the judgment of conviction dated 29.3.2006, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Case No. 11/3 of 2000, whereby learned Court below, held respondent-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act (as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh), and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and, in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. Facts, as emerge from the record are that on 17.7.1999, SHO Vijay Kumar alongwith other police officials, laid a Naka near Andha Mor, Waknaghat, and at about 1.00 am, one truck came from Solan side, followed by a Maruti van. When aforesaid truck was signaled to stop, occupants of the truck on seeing the police, stopped the truck 30-40 metres away from the Naka and tried to run away by jumping from the truck, however, they were apprehended by the police party. Maruti Van was also stopped, but the occupants, four in number, jumped from the Maruti Van and ran towards hillside and escaped under the cover of darkness. Driver of the truck was arrested. Four persons, who had run away from the Van were heard calling each other by their names i.e., Bittu, Madan and Kaka etc. Subsequently, truck in question was searched, wherein police recovered 95 sacks of country liquor mark “Gulab”, each sack containing four bags and each bag containing 50 pouches of 180 ml country liquor and as such, in total, police recovered 19000 pouches (34,20,000 ml) of country liquor. Police also checked the Maruti Van, which allegedly had no number plate and recovered 5 sacks, each containing four bags of “Bagpiper” Whisky, each bag containing 12 bottles and in total 240 bottles containing 1,80,000 ml of Indian Made Foreign Liquor was recovered. Police took into possession Maruti Van as well as truck and during investigation found that accused Bittu alias Bhagat Singh, Madan, Kaka, Hem Raj and one person from Shimla, was involved in the illegal transportation of liquor. Police took into possession Maruti Van as well as truck and during investigation found that accused Bittu alias Bhagat Singh, Madan, Kaka, Hem Raj and one person from Shimla, was involved in the illegal transportation of liquor. After completion of codal formalities on the spot, police sent Rukka for registration of FIR, on the basis of which FIR came to be registered against the accused. Police also took samples from the liquor recovered and sent the same to Composite Testing Laboratory (CTL) Kandaghat and report therefrom was received, which established the contents of samples to be of alcohol. On completion of investigation, police presented Challan against the accused persons. 3. Learned trial Court, on being satisfied that a prima facie case exists against the accused, framed charge against them under S. 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter, ‘Act’), to which they pleaded not guilty and clamed trial. 4. Subsequently, learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 29.3.2006, acquitted the accused namely Suresh Kumar, Madan Singh, Sunil Dhawan and Kusum Thakur, whereas respondents-accused-Sukh Dev Singh, Hem Raj alias Kaka and Bhagat Singh alias Bittu, came to be convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Act and convicted them as per description given herein above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded against them, respondentsaccused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, who, vide judgment dated 13.10.2006, acquitted them. In the aforesaid background, State has approached this court in the instant appeal praying therein for setting aside the Judgment of acquittal and to convict the respondents-accused. 5. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned Deputy Advocate General, while making this court to peruse the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, vehemently argued that the same is not sustainable in the eye of law, as the same is not based upon correct appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, as such, prayed that the same be quashed and set aside. Mr. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned Deputy Advocate General, further contended that bare perusal of the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, clearly suggests that the prosecution successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of alleged incident, truck/van owned/driven by the accused was/were apprehended by the police, carrying liquor, without there being any valid permit and as such, there was no occasion, if any, for the learned Court below to have set aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. While referring to the statements having been made by the prosecution witnesses, learned Deputy Advocate General made a serious attempt to persuade this court to agree with his contention that, if statements of the prosecution witnesses are read in conjunction, same clearly prove the guilt of the accused, as such, no scope, if any, was left for the court below to hold accused not guilty of commission of offence punishable under the aforesaid provisions. He further contended that since the samples were drawn from each bag, containing country and Indian Made Foreign Liquor, there was no requirement, as such, for the investigating agency to draw samples from each and every pouch/bottle, because in that eventuality, investigating agency had to draw around 19,240 samples (19000 samples from pouches and 240 samples from bottles), which was not possible. While referring to the report of the chemical analyst, he contended that it stands duly established on record that the liquor recovered from the vehicles in question, owned and driven by accused, was found to be country liquor and Indian Made Foreign Liquor, which was admittedly being transported by the accused, without there being any valid permit. 6. Mr. Paras Dhaulta and Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocates, appearing for the respondent 1-accused and respondents No.2 and 3-accused, respectively, while supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the same, rather it is based upon correct appreciation of evidence, as such, there is no scope of interference by this court. They further contended that though the alleged recovery was effected on a National Highway where vehicles ply all the time, but there is no explanation rendered on record as to why no independent witness came to be associated. They further contended that though the alleged recovery was effected on a National Highway where vehicles ply all the time, but there is no explanation rendered on record as to why no independent witness came to be associated. He contended that despite there being availability of independent witnesses, prosecution failed to associate any independent witness, which creates serious doubt with regard to correctness of the story put forth by the prosecution. They further contended that even otherwise, if statements of prosecution witnesses are read in conjunction, there are material contradictions and inconsistencies as such, same could not be made basis for holding accused guilty of having committed offences punishable under S.61(1)(a) of the Act. Learned counsel representing the accused, vehemently argued that the learned Sessions Judge rightly upset the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court, as far as accused are concerned, because on the same and similar set of evidence, other accused were acquitted, who were allegedly involved in the same incident, whereas, present accused were convicted without there being any evidence against them. Lastly, learned counsel representing accused, while placing reliance upon judgment rendered by this court in case titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2018) LatestHLJ 73, contended that once samples were drawn only from 5 bottles and 12 pouches out of total contraband allegedly recovered from the truck and Maruti Van in question, recovery, if any, could be said to be of 5 bottles and 12 pouches against the accused. Learned counsel for the accused contended that since samples were not drawn from all the bottles and pouches allegedly recovered from the truck and van in question, recovery of 240 bottles and 19000 pouches is not proved in accordance with law, as such, learned Sessions Judge rightly acquitted them of the charges framed under aforesaid provisions of the Act. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis impugned judgment recorded by the learned Court below, this court finds that alleged recovery came to be effected from the Maruti Van and the truck owned and driven by accused on 17.7.1999 at about 1.00 am, near Andha Mor, Waknaghat, which is situate on National Highway. At this stage, this court can take judicial note of the fact that the Highway in question is a busy road, on which vehicles ply day and night, as such, there appears to be considerable force in the arguments of learned counsel for the accused that despite there being availability of independent witnesses, no effort, if any, to associate any independent witness, ever came to be made on behalf of the police, which had laid Naka, to prove its story. Otherwise also, at the place, Waknaghat, there are many houses/shops and independent witnesses could have been easily associated, had the police put in some efforts in this direction. Once the police had laid Naka, it can be presumed that it had some prior information with regard to illegal transportation/smuggling of liquor, as such, it ought to have made arrangement for associating independent witnesses in the event of effecting recovery on account of interception made by it. In the case at hand, all the prosecution witnesses are official witnesses. No doubt, version put forth by the official witnesses can not be ignored or brushed aside solely on account of non-association of independent witnesses, but, at the same time, it is settled law that the version put forth by officials witnesses needs to be taken note of with utmost caution, while ascertaining guilt of the accused, especially when it is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. 9. Otherwise also, careful perusal of the evidence led on record by the prosecution nowhere compels this court to agree with the contention of the learned Deputy Advocate General that the statements having been made by the prosecution witnesses inspire confidence, rather, there are material contradictions and inconsistencies therein, which certainly compel this court to conclude that the story put forth by the prosecution is not trustworthy. Interestingly, evidence collected by the prosecution to implicate accused Hem Raj and Bhagat Singh was that they, while leaving the spot/ Van were calling each other by their names, which fact, by no stretch of imagination, could be a basis to implead them as accused. Otherwise also, this court was unable to lay its hand to any piece of evidence, suggestive of the fact that that the accused were apprehended or caught at the spot smuggling liquor, without there being any valid permit, that is why, they came to be rightly acquitted by the trial court. 10. Otherwise also, this court was unable to lay its hand to any piece of evidence, suggestive of the fact that that the accused were apprehended or caught at the spot smuggling liquor, without there being any valid permit, that is why, they came to be rightly acquitted by the trial court. 10. In the case at hand, prosecution with a view to prove the complicity of the accused also adduced on record call details of the mobile phones of accused, but prosecution was not able to link the accused with the transportation of liquor on that day. Interestingly, text of talk, if any, with regard to liquor never came to be produced in the court, as such, court below rightly observed that what exactly came to be transported and what accused were talking about with each other on the relevant day over the phone, has been not brought before it and as such, there is no connection as such of the accused with the commission of alleged offence. 11. As far as involvement of Sukh Dev is concerned, he was the only person, who was allegedly found on the spot. As per prosecution story, he was driver of the truck, but interestingly, no evidence was led on record to prove the factum that on the relevant day, he was driving truck in question. As per own case of the prosecution, person named above was not found by the police inside truck driving the same, because, as per prosecution story, all the occupants of truck, on seeing the police, had run away but they were subsequently apprehended by the police party, as has been observed above, there is no evidence led on record by the prosecution to prove that the accused Sukh Dev was the person, who was actually driving the truck. Apart from that, there is no evidence led on record against accused Sukh Dev that he was also involved in the illegal trade/transportation of liquor. Specific case against the accused Sukh Dev as put forth by the prosecution is that on date of alleged incident, he was found driving truck, carrying illicit liquor. Apart from that, there is no evidence led on record against accused Sukh Dev that he was also involved in the illegal trade/transportation of liquor. Specific case against the accused Sukh Dev as put forth by the prosecution is that on date of alleged incident, he was found driving truck, carrying illicit liquor. Prosecution also set up a case that four occupants had fled away from the Maruti Van, but as has been noticed herein above, there is no link evidence available on record that who identified these four persons and merely that they were calling each other by their names, could not be made basis to hold accused as guilty. 12. Leaving everything aside, this court finds that if statements of prosecution witnesses are read in their entirety, there are material contradictions and inconsistencies as such, same could not be made basis for returning findings of guilt against accused. 13. By now it is well settled that in a criminal trial evidence of eye-witness requires careful assessment and needs to be evaluated for its creditability. Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that since fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon well established principle that “no man is guilty until proved so”, utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with the situation where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. Most importantly, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses. In nutshell, it can be said that evidence in criminal cases needs to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Magesh and others versus State of Karnataka, (2010) 5 SCC 645 , wherein it has been held as under:- “45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to emphasis, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case titled Surja Singh v. State of U.P., (2008) 16 SCC 686 : 2008(11) SCR 286 has held:-( SCC p.704, para 14) “14. Needless to emphasis, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case titled Surja Singh v. State of U.P., (2008) 16 SCC 686 : 2008(11) SCR 286 has held:-( SCC p.704, para 14) “14. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witness is held to be creditworthy; the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.” In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that “no man is guilty until proven so,” hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situation where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistence in evidence amongst all the witnesses.” 14. On the top of everything, this court finds that after having effected recovery, police party drew insufficient samples. As per own case of prosecution, police drew 12 samples from 19000 pouches of country liquor of “Gulab” make, whereas 5 samples out of 240 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor were drawn, which were not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the entire bulk allegedly recovered by police was liquor/alcohol. No doubt, in the case at hand, police, with a view to prove that liquor recovered by it contained alcohol, placed on record report of the Composite Testing Laboratory (CTL), Kandaghat, but that is only qua 12 pouches and 5 bottles and as such, there is no report, if any, qua remaining bulk allegedly recovered from the truck/van owned/driven by the accused. In the aforesaid background, learned Sessions Judge, rightly held that since 12 pouches of country liquor of “Gulab” make were sent for chemical analysis, recovery, if any, from the accused could be said to be of 12 pouches only and same is the case with Indian Made Foreign Liquor where samples from 5 bottles out of 240 were sent. 15. In the aforesaid background, learned Sessions Judge, rightly held that since 12 pouches of country liquor of “Gulab” make were sent for chemical analysis, recovery, if any, from the accused could be said to be of 12 pouches only and same is the case with Indian Made Foreign Liquor where samples from 5 bottles out of 240 were sent. 15. It would be apt to reproduce following paras of the judgment rendered by this court in Rakesh Kumar (supra): 25. Leaving everything aside, it is an admitted case of the prosecution that only six bottles of mark “Saroor” out of forty cartons and six bottles of mark “Bagpiper” out of six cartons were drawn as sample and sent for examination to CTL Kandaghat, as such, from the reports of CTL Kandaghat verifying therein presence of liquor, content is only proved qua twelve bottles in all as such, recovery, of twelve bottles only is proved against the accused, whereas all 480 bottles of country made liquor mark “Saroor” and 72 bottles of foreign liquor mark “Bagpiper” allegedly recovered from the truck being driven by the accused, were required to be sent for chemical examination, but in the instant case, only twelve bottles were sent for chemical examination as such the whole of the recovery is vitiated. 26. In this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by our own High Court in Surender Singh. V. State of H.P., (2013) 2 LatestHLJ 865, which reads as under:- “26. In the instant case, it be also noticed that there is yet another major flaw in the investigation by the police. Assuming that the contraband was actually recovered by the police party, police did not take samples from all the boxes. Samples only from few bottles out of some of the boxes, which they had opened, were taken. None of these witnesses have deposed that the remaining boxes were sealed; from outside appeared to be of the same make or brand; bearing serial numbers; the date of manufacture; or the place and the name of the manufacturer. All that these witnesses have deposed is that boxes of alcohol, as described above, were found in the vehicle. Inside the boxes could be anything. Police could not prove that the remaining boxes actually contained liquor. The samples cannot be said to be representative in character. 27. All that these witnesses have deposed is that boxes of alcohol, as described above, were found in the vehicle. Inside the boxes could be anything. Police could not prove that the remaining boxes actually contained liquor. The samples cannot be said to be representative in character. 27. 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; 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, acquitted the accused, as prosecution could not prove, beyond reasonable doubt, as to what was actually there in the remaining boxes. 28. As per version of PW-1, outside the boxes ‘Sirmour No.1’ was printed which version stands denied by PW-7. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the remaining boxes were in fact containing liquor. Quantity of the remaining bottles of the boxes from which samples were drawn has also not been proved to be liquor. These aspects have not been considered by the Courts below. The cumulative effect is that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt and as such judgments of the Courts below are not sustainable in law.” 27. Reliance is also placed on the judgment passed by this Court State of HP v. Jagjit Singh,2008 LatestHLJ 919, wherein this Court has observed in paras 6 and 7 as under:- “6. At the very outset, I would like to say that neither the non-compliance of sub-section (6) of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will render the search illegally nor the respondent can be acquitted on this sole ground. However, in the instant case the regrettable feature is that as per the case of the prosecution 72 pouches of country liquor of “Gulab” brand country liquor containing 180 ml. each were recovered from the possession of the respondent. Admittedly, one pouch of 180 ml. out of the recovered quantity was retained as a sample, which was of licit origin as opined by the Chemical Analyst. 7. There is nothing on record to show that the remaining 71 pouches alleged to have been recovered from the respondent also contain the country liquor more than the permissible quantity without the permit or licence. out of the recovered quantity was retained as a sample, which was of licit origin as opined by the Chemical Analyst. 7. There is nothing on record to show that the remaining 71 pouches alleged to have been recovered from the respondent also contain the country liquor more than the permissible quantity without the permit or licence. Before the respondent could be convicted for the offence charged, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the respondent was in actual and conscious possession of the licit liquor in excess of the prescribed limit.” 28. In view of the aforesaid discussion and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, there are major flaws in the investigation of the prosecution and prosecution story does not appear to be believable. Besides this, there are major contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which definitely can not be relied to hold the accused guilty of the offences alleged against him. 16. Consequently in view of discussion made herein above, there is no merit in the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Interim directions, if any, are vacated. Case property, if not destroyed, be destroyed forthwith.