JUDGMENT : 1. Present revision application u/s 397 r/w section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the petitioners – accused being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 12.2.2009 passed by the learned JMFC, Una in Criminal Case No.689 of 2008 and confirmed by judgment and order dated 8.11.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2012 (old No.3 of 2009). 2. The prosecution case is that the petitioners accused were travelling his their Mahindra jeep having registration No.GJ 4 D 4962 with Indian made foreign liquor and bear from Una to Div and near village Naliya Mandavi, they were intercepted and arrested by the police. 3. Charge was framed. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the case was returned for recording the prosecution evidence. In all, the prosecution has examined total 06 witnesses, as also produced the 04 number of documentary evidence. The learned trial Court having appreciated the said evidence recorded the finding as noted in the judgment culminated in conviction as stated supra followed by imposition of punishment as above, which has been unsuccessfully challenged before the first appellate Court and thus present revision is filed. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Tushar Sheth for the petitioners and learned APP. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that panchas of the recovery panchnama examined by the learned trial Court at Exhs.9 and 11 turned hostile and did not support the recovery of the Indian made foreign liquor from the jeep. The learned trial Court on its own consideration has convicted the accused merely on conjectures, surmises and presumption. He would further submit that the prosecution has recorded depositions of the police officials only. The incident took place in the public place and no eye witnesses are examined. This aspect has been overlooked by the learned trial Court and while doing so, the learned trial Court has overlooked the basic canon of criminal justice delivery system that charge/offence is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has failed in adhering to the basic principles of conducting the criminal trial and appreciation of evidence thereof and therefore, he submits to allow this petition. 6. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has failed in adhering to the basic principles of conducting the criminal trial and appreciation of evidence thereof and therefore, he submits to allow this petition. 6. On the other hand, learned APP while supporting the impugned judgment and order, would submit that in the revisional jurisdiction, the Court should slow in disturbing the concurrent findings of fact. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has appreciated and analyzed the evidence produced on record, which was confirmed by the learned Sessions Court and therefore, in this revision, until, serious error of understanding of law is made out by the petitioner, the Court should not disturb the concurrent findings of fact. She would further submit that not only the learned Magistrate, but the learned Sessions Court has appreciated and re-appreciated the evidence and reached to the conclusion that the Indian made foreign liquor was found from the jeep, which was driven by the petitioners accused. Therefore, in this case, conviction should be confirmed. 7. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and on going through the impugned judgment and order, at the outset, it is to be noted that this Court being a revisional Court is adhering limited jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. The petitioners are required to show that there is glaring error in the impugned judgment and order. Keeping this issue in mind, if we go through the case of the prosecution, it was that Indian made foreign liquor 48 bottle in number and box containing bear were found from the jeep, which was in possession of the petitioners accused and they were riding it. If we go through the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court, what appears that both the panch witnesses at Exhs.9 and 11 have turned hostile and rest of the witnesses are police officials. The incident took place in the open space, but no independent witnesses are examined. Merely upon depositions of the police officials without being corroborated by any other independent witnesses, that cannot be acted upon. The learned trial Court has given some alien reason to reach to the conclusion that since the P.I., Una has no relationship with the petitioners accused, there is no reason to believe that false case is filed against the petitioners. This could not be consideration or reason for convicting the petitioners accused. The learned trial Court has given some alien reason to reach to the conclusion that since the P.I., Una has no relationship with the petitioners accused, there is no reason to believe that false case is filed against the petitioners. This could not be consideration or reason for convicting the petitioners accused. The courts are weighed with the evidence recorded during the investigation and to appreciate the evidence which comes during trial. The Court cannot convict the petitioners accused on conjectures, surmises and presumption and merely, in the present case, since the PI, Una has no dispute with the petitioners accused, there is no reason to believe that he has been falsely implicated. When recovery is not proved, panchnama is not proved and there is no evidence which indicates that the accused were found with the Indian made foreign liquor, the Court cannot on its own feeling sense come to the conclusion that the accused have committed the offence. 8. Though the learned Sessions Court while confirming the conviction, has failed to re-appreciate the aspect that panchnama at Exh.10 is not proved. Both the panchas have turned hostile. Moreover, the learned Sessions Court has placed reliance upon section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act to come to the conclusion that it is the case, which has to explain that in what circumstances, he was possessing the Indian made foreign liquor. Thus, the findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Court is complete diametric to the basic cannon of the criminal jurisprudence. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act would not be applicable in the present case. At the same time, section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act would have no role to play here since the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of the Indian made foreign liquor. 9. In all, what can be stated that the learned Courts below have come to the conclusion on conjectures, surmises and presumption and in absence of the evidence proving the offence against the petitioners accused beyond reasonable doubt. A glaring error of understanding of law has been committed by the learned Courts below. Hence, this is a fit case to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the revision succeeds. Both the judgment and order of the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside. A glaring error of understanding of law has been committed by the learned Courts below. Hence, this is a fit case to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the revision succeeds. Both the judgment and order of the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside. The petitioners are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Bail bond stands cancelled. The amount of fine if paid shall be refunded to petitioners on proper verification and identification. R & P, if any, be sent back. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.