JUDGMENT : State has preferred this appeal against acquittal of respondent in Criminal Case No. 22-1-08/ 48-III-08, arising out of FIR No. 254 of 2007, registered in Police Station Hamirpur under Section 61(1)(a) of Punjab Excise Act as application to State of Himachal Pradesh. 2. Prosecution case is that on 18.6.2007, police patrolling party headed by PW9 HC Surender Kumar received a credible information that respondent was selling liquor in his shop unauthorizedly and on raiding the said shop, huge quantity of liquor would be recovered. As there was apprehension of destroying/destruction of case property, therefore, for registration of FIR, a Ruka Ext.PW9/A was prepared and sent to Police Station Hamirpur, which led to registration of FIR Ext.PW6/B. 3. After associating Vidhi Chand PW11 as an independent witness in the search and seizure process, shop was raided in presence of accused and during search, total 145 bottles, of various Marks of Whisky, Rum, I.M.F.L., Lal Kila, Una No.1 and Punjab Orange, were recovered from shop of respondent. Respondent could not produce any permit in this regard, whereupon all bottles were seized vide memo Ext.PW9/B after keeping one bottle of each kind as sample and these bottles were sealed with seal impression Ext.PW9/D. Impression of said seal was taken on separate piece of cloth. 4. Samples of liquor were deposited in the Malkhana and entered in Malkhana Register vide entry Ext.PW2/A and these samples on 8.7.2007, vide RC No. 93/07, Ext.PW2/B, were sent to Chemical Test Laboratory, Kandaghat through C. Sunil Kumar PW3 and after depositing the same in CTL Kandaghat, he handed over the receipt to MHC. As per result of Chemical Analysis Ext.PW9/G and Ext.PW9/H, received from CTL Kandaghat, samples were affirmed as country liquor with different percentage of proof alcohol in each. 5. In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. Thereafter, statement of respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. No defence evidence was led by respondent. 6. PW11 Bidhi Chand, an independent witness, did not support the prosecution case by stating that no recovery of liquor took place in his presence and further that samples were neither taken in his presence nor sealed with seal ‘H’. After declaring him as hostile witness, for resiling from earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC, he was cross examined, but nothing material could be elucidated in favour of prosecution in his cross examination. After declaring him as hostile witness, for resiling from earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC, he was cross examined, but nothing material could be elucidated in favour of prosecution in his cross examination. PW4 HC Swaroop Kumar in his cross examination has admitted that large number of bottles, produced in Court as case property, were either empty or half filled which indicates that case property was not kept intact by prosecution. Benefit of tampering with case property is to be extended to respondent as in absence of production and proof of case property as sealed on the spot, it would be difficult to place reliance upon recovery thereof. 7. According to PW4 Swaroop Kumar, bottles were kept in gunny bag, whereas PW9 Surinder Kumar stated that case property was kept in gunny bags as well as in boxes with description that two boxes were having 24 bottles and remaining bottles were kept in gunny bags. PW5 Dalel Singh stated that case property was kept in six gunny bags, whereas PW12 Shyam Lakhanpal stated that case property was kept in 3-4 gunny bags. All these witnesses are official witnesses, whose version with respect to case property is different to each other. 8 PW4 HC Swaroop Kumar stated that case property was recovered from a building having two storeys. In his cross examination, he denied that building was five storeyed having four shops with further clarification that those shops are owned by two shopkeepers. Whereas PW9 HC Surinder has stated that there is one storey above the shop and one storey below the shop meaning thereby that building was three storeyed, but thereafter, he again stated that said building might be having five storeys. He stated that there are two shops in the building. PW5 HC Dalel Singh stated that building was three storeyed and it was having 4-5 shops. PW12 C.Shyam Lakhanpal stated that building was single storeyed and there were 2-3 shops adjacent to each other and he further stated that he did not know that who were owners of shops adjacent to shop wherefrom liquor was recovered. All these witnesses have given different versions regarding the number of storeys and shop(s) wherefrom recovery of liquor was allegedly effected. 9. PW4 Swaroop Kumar stated that room wherefrom liquor was recovered was having wooden partition and there was a door and some Karyana was lying in the said building. All these witnesses have given different versions regarding the number of storeys and shop(s) wherefrom recovery of liquor was allegedly effected. 9. PW4 Swaroop Kumar stated that room wherefrom liquor was recovered was having wooden partition and there was a door and some Karyana was lying in the said building. PW5 Dalel Singh stated that there was no door in room and room was partitioned with brick wall. PW9 Surinder Kumar stated that shop was consisting of two rooms and it was partitioned with brick wall whereas PW12 Shyam Lakhanpal was unable to depose about material of partition of two rooms. On this count also, these witnesses have given version contrary to each other. 10. PW9 HC Surinder Kumar is Investigating Officer who seized and took possession of alleged bottles of liquor. He remained in possession of those bottles and in his deposition in Court, he nowhere stated that case property remained intact in his possession and it was not tampered in any manner. Omission to depose such fact may be a minor discrepancy but for production of case property, which was not intact as admitted by PW4 Swaroop Kumar in his cross examination, it becomes a material fact causing de-linking all samples of liquor sent to CTL Kandaghat with case property seized by police and in such eventuality, chemical analysis of samples by CTL Kandaghat has also become irrelevant for adjudication of case. 11. In present case, the only independent witness did not support the prosecution case. It is true that there can be conviction on the basis of deposition of official witnesses only irrespective of the fact that independent witness(es) did not support the prosecution case and declared hostile. However, in such eventuality, veracity of official witnesses is to be judged by evaluating the evidence minutely. In present case, for glaring discrepancies and contradictions of statements of official witnesses with respect to case property, description of building as well as details of room/shop wherefrom liquor was recovered and also other material on record doubting the credence of prosecution case, respondent cannot be convicted on the basis of statements of official witnesses including the Investigating Officer as their deposition in cross examination has shaken their credibility and therefore, it cannot be said that State has proved the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent, reliable, credible and trustworthy evidence on record. In view of aforesaid discussion, appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit. Bail bonds furnished by respondent are discharged.