JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 27.08.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Appellate Court), vide which the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2006 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were set aside. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act (as applicable to the State of H.P.). It was asserted that ASI Amar Singh (PW-4), Rajinder Singh (PW-2), and HHC Jagdish Chand were on patrolling duty on 04.06.2005 in an official vehicle bearing registration No. HP68-0816, which was being driven by Janak Chand (PW-5). They intercepted a van bearing registration number HP-53-1924 at 8:30 p.m. and found 24 bottles of XXX Rum Josh inside a torn carton. The driver identified himself as Anil Kumar. Five bottles were retained as samples for analysis, and the remaining 19 bottles were put in a gunny bag. The sample bottles and gunny bag were sealed with seal ‘A’. Seal impression (Ext.PW4/A) was taken on a piece of cloth. Gunny bag and sample bottles were seized vide memo (Ext.PW-2/A). The accused produced the documents of the vehicle, which were seized vide memo (Ext.PW-2/B). Rukka (Ext.PW-4/B was prepared and sent to the Police Station, where F.I.R. (Ext.PW-1/A) was registered. ASI Amar Singh (PW-4) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-4/C) and recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. He took the photographs of the vehicle (Ext.PW- 4/D-1 to Ext.PW-4/D-4) whose negatives are Ext.PW-4/D-5 to Ext.PW-4/D-8. The case property was deposited with MHC Rakesh Kumar (PW-1), who deposited it in Malkhana. He handed over the sample bottles to Jagdish Chand (PW-3) with a direction to carry them to CTL Kandaghat for chemical analysis vide RC No. 72/21. Jagdish Chand deposited the sample bottles in a safe condition at CTL Kandaghat and handed over the receipt to Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) on his return. The result of the analysis (Ext. He handed over the sample bottles to Jagdish Chand (PW-3) with a direction to carry them to CTL Kandaghat for chemical analysis vide RC No. 72/21. Jagdish Chand deposited the sample bottles in a safe condition at CTL Kandaghat and handed over the receipt to Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) on his return. The result of the analysis (Ext. PX and PY) was issued, in which it was mentioned that each bottle contained 65.0% proof alcohol. Statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their version. After completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court. 3. Learned Trial Court framed the charge against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act (as applicable to the State of H.P.), to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined four witnesses to prove its case. Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) was working as an MHC with whom the case property was deposited. Rajender Singh (PW-2) and Janak Chand (PW-5) witnessed the recovery. Jagdish Chand (PW-3) carried the sample to CTL Kandaghat. ASI Amar Singh (PW-4) investigated the matter. 5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He stated that he was falsely implicated by the police. The witnesses have deposed against him because they were police officials. He did not produce any evidence in defence. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the testimonies of official witnesses corroborated each other. There was nothing in their cross-examination to show that they were deposing falsely. It was a case of chance recovery, and non-association of any independent witness was not material. Learned Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of H.P. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and, in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month. 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (learned Appellate Court). 7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (learned Appellate Court). The learned Appellate Court held that the statements of the prosecution witnesses materially contradicted each other, which made the prosecution’s case highly doubtful. The cartons in which the bottles were kept were not produced before the Court. The police officials admitted that many vehicles had crossed the police party, but no witness was associated. Non-association of the independent witness made the prosecution’s case suspect. Hence, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court were set aside. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court, the State has filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the prosecution’s evidence in its proper perspective. Statements of official witnesses proved that 24 bottles of XXX Rum of the Josh brand were recovered from the vehicle being driven by the accused. The accused had failed to prove any enmity with the police officials, and the learned Trial Court had rightly held that there was no reason to disbelieve the testimonies. The police would not have planted such a huge quantity of liquor upon the accused without any reason. Learned Appellate Court erred in setting aside the well-reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court be set aside. 9. I have heard Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the appellant/State and Ms Shivangi Sharma, learned vice counsel representing the respondent. 10. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the appellant/State, submitted that the learned Appellate Court set aside the well-reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court without any cogent reason. Minor contradictions were blown out of proportion. The contradictions were bound to come with time due to the failure of memory, and they should not have been used to discard the prosecution’s case. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be restored. 11. Ms Shivangi Sharma, learned vice counsel representing the respondent, submitted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on material aspects. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be restored. 11. Ms Shivangi Sharma, learned vice counsel representing the respondent, submitted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses contradicted each other on material aspects. The integrity of the case property was also not established. The learned Appellate Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused, and this Court should not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Appellate Court, even if another view is possible. Hence, she prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 12. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 13. The present appeal has been filed against a judgment of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 176: (2025) 5 SCC 433 that the Court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal if it is patently perverse, is based on misreading/omission to consider the material evidence and reached a conclusion which no reasonable person could have reached. It was observed at page 440: “23. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka 2024 SCC Online SC 4035, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus: “38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging the acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court. 39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: (SCC pp. 482-83, para 29) “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 :(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325), SCC p. 432, para 42) ‘42. 482-83, para 29) “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 :(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325), SCC p. 432, para 42) ‘42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, puts no limitation, restriction or condition on the exercise of such power and an appellate court, on the evidence before it, may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and law. (3) Various expressions, such as “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc., are not intended to curtail the extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with an acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in the case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused, having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 40. Further, in H.D. Sundarav.State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 : (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748, this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows: (SCC p. 584, para 8) 8..…8.1. Further, in H.D. Sundarav.State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 : (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748, this Court summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows: (SCC p. 584, para 8) 8..…8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence. 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: 41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity. 41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 24.It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.” 14. This position was reiterated in P. Somaraju v. State of A.P. , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291, wherein it was observed: “12. To summarise, an Appellate Court undoubtedly has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. However, due to the reinforced or ‘double’ presumption of innocence after acquittal, interference must be limited. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the record, the acquittal should not be disturbed. Judicial intervention is only warranted where the Trial Court's view is perverse, based on misreading or ignoring material evidence, or results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the Appellate Court must address the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal before reversing it and assigning its own. A catena of the recent judgments of this Court has more firmly entrenched this position, including, inter alia, Mallappa v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 104 , Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 INSC 258 , Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka 2024 INSC 320 , and Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 114 .” 15. The present appeal is required to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16. In the present case, the prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of police officials and did not associate any independent witness. Rajender Singh (PW-2) stated in his cross- examination that the raiding party was prepared during the patrolling, but he did not remember the place where the raiding party was found. ASI Amar Singh (PW-4) stated in his cross- examination that the raiding party was prepared about half a kilometre before the place of the recovery. He had not tried to associate any local person with the raiding party. He volunteered to say that he made the effort, but did not find anyone. He did not remember whether he had sent any police official to call the independent person. 17. Neither of these witnesses has explained the necessity to prepare the raiding party before reaching the place of recovery. ASI Amar Singh even claimed to have made efforts to join the independent witness. He did not remember whether he had sent any police official to call the independent person. 17. Neither of these witnesses has explained the necessity to prepare the raiding party before reaching the place of recovery. ASI Amar Singh even claimed to have made efforts to join the independent witness. The fact that the Investigating Officer had prepared a raiding party before the place of the recovery and had even tried to associate independent witnesses makes the prosecution’s case regarding the present case being a chance recovery doubtful. 18. Rajinder Singh (PW-2) stated in his cross-examination that the arrangement of the gunny bag was made by the Investigating Officer by sending a police official; however, he did not remember who was sent to bring the gunny bag. Janak Chand (PW-5) stated that he did not remember from where the gunny bag was procured. Amar Singh (PW4) stated in his cross-examination that the gunny bag was with him. Therefore, the witnesses have made inconsistent statements regarding the procurement of the gunny bag. The gunny bag was used to seal the remaining bottles, and if the witnesses are making inconsistent statements regarding the procurement of the gunny bag, the prosecution’s case that 19 bottles were put in the gunny bag and were sealed on the spot becomes suspect. 19. The prosecution asserted that the bottles were sealed on the spot with seal ‘A’. Seal impression (Ext.PW-4/A) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. The seal ‘A’ is not clearly legible on the seal impression (Ext.PW-4/A), and one of the seals can be read as seal ‘B’. The report of the analysis (Ext.PX) does not mention any seal, whereas, report (Ext.PY) mentions that bottles were sealed, but did not mention the seal impression. Thus, there is a discrepancy regarding the seal impression, which would make the prosecution’s case suspect. 20. HC Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) stated that he had sent the sample of the bottles through Jagdish Chand (PW-3) for chemical analysis. He did not mention that the sample seal was also sent by him. Jagdish Chand (PW-3) stated that five bottles of XXX Rum Josh were handed over to him with the direction to deposit them with the Chemical Examiner. He has also not mentioned the sample seal. He did not mention that the sample seal was also sent by him. Jagdish Chand (PW-3) stated that five bottles of XXX Rum Josh were handed over to him with the direction to deposit them with the Chemical Examiner. He has also not mentioned the sample seal. Significantly, the Chemical Examiner mentioned that the seal found on the sample was intact and unbroken and tallied with the seal impression of the seal sent separately. The statements of MHC Rakesh Kumar (PW1) and HHC Jagdish Chand (PW-3) do not show that any sample seal was sent, and the report of analysis that the seal was sent separately and the impression was tallied is highly doubtful. It was laid down by this Court in State of H.P. vs. Pankaj Sood & another, Latest HLJ 2009(1) 727, that when no witness had deposed that the sample seal was sent separately, the prosecution’s case cannot be believed. A similar view was taken in Om Parkash vs. State of H.P. 2009 (1) Cur. L.J. (H.P)493. It was laid down by this Court in Kishan Chand & Another Vs. State 2009 (2) HLJ 925 that where the person depositing the case property had not stated anything about the deposit of the sample seal, and the person carrying the case property did not say anything about the carrying of the sample seal, link evidence is missing. The endorsement made by CTL Kandaghat in these circumstances, that seal impressions were compared with the sample seal, will lose its significance. It was observed:- “7. In the instant case, PW-6 A.S.I. Churamani, however, did not state about the deposit of the case property in the Malkhana. But, PW-5 MHC Hukam Singh stated that on 19.6.2000, A.S.I. Churamani had deposited the case property sealed with seal impression 'N' in the Malkhana with him. But he nowhere stated that the sample of the seal was also deposited with him in the Malkhana. Even the extract of the Malkhana Register was not placed and proved on record. Thus, it cannot be said that the sample of the seal was also deposited in the Malkhana with him, along with the case property. Even PW-2 constable Rajinder Kumar also did not say anything about handing over the sample of the seal to him when he had taken the samples for its examination to C.T.L. Kandaghat. Thus, it cannot be said that the sample of the seal was also deposited in the Malkhana with him, along with the case property. Even PW-2 constable Rajinder Kumar also did not say anything about handing over the sample of the seal to him when he had taken the samples for its examination to C.T.L. Kandaghat. The copy of R.C. No.55/2000 vide which he took the sample for analysis has also not been placed and proved on record. Had it been there, it could have thrown some light on this aspect of the matter, whether the sample of the seal was also entrusted to him, which was further handed over by him to the person who received the samples in the laboratory, for its comparison with the seal found on samples sent for analysis. 8. The lithographic impression on the report Ext. PW-4/A, of course, shows that seals on the samples were found intact and unbroken and tallied with the impression seal sent separately, but it loses its importance in view of the fact that no witness has stated to have either deposited the sample seal along with case property in the Malkhana or sending it separately to the Laboratory when the samples were taken for analysis. Then how could the sample of the seal be available in the Laboratory for its comparison. The lithographic stamp is mechanically put on the report. 9. Further, the case of the prosecution is that the seal, after its use, was given to PW-1 Ravinder Kumar, but he did not say that the seal was ever entrusted to him. Thus, where the seal is used on the samples is not known. Therefore, in these circumstances, a substantial doubt has arisen, and the prosecution could not exclude the possibility of tampering with the samples. Thus, the link evidence in the instant case is found missing. There is no evidence on record regarding the entrustment of the seal and no entry in the R.C. and Malkhana register; therefore, reasonable doubt is cast on the probity of the prosecution case, which fact was lost sight of by the courts below. Therefore, in these circumstances, the benefit of the doubt should have been given to the petitioners.” 21. This position was reiterated in State of H.P. Vs. Rakesh Kumar 2018 (1) HLJ 73 wherein it was held:- “7. Therefore, in these circumstances, the benefit of the doubt should have been given to the petitioners.” 21. This position was reiterated in State of H.P. Vs. Rakesh Kumar 2018 (1) HLJ 73 wherein it was held:- “7. Interestingly, there is no mention, if any, regarding the handing over of the seal by this witness to CTL Kandaghat, for comparison. It has come in his statement that he had taken samples, but he has not stated that the specimen seal was also given to him for depositing in CTL Kandaghat. Samples were sent to CTL Kandaghat through Jai Singh (PW- 6), who simply deposed that he had sent samples through PW-5 Durga Dutt. Interestingly, he nowhere stated that the specimen seal impression was also sent separately for chemical analysis. 18. True it is, that reports of CTL, Ext. PW-7/G to Ext. PW- 7/K show that the specimen seal impression allegedly separately sent, tallied with the seal impressions on the samples; however, link evidence is missing as to how the specimen seal impression reached the chemical analyst. Similarly, it emerges from the record that there is no mention of any in the Challan with regard to sending of specimen seal to CTL Kandaghat. This certainly creates doubt with regard to the genuineness of the prosecution’s case. 19. This court, in a case titled State of H.P. vs. Pankaj Sood, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 727, has held that in such a case, by no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that the samples were sent along with the sample seal for comparison, and it was held that the prosecution’s case was doubtful on this count. It was further held by this Court in the aforesaid case that the prosecution is obliged to prove that the article recovered from the possession of the accused is contraband within the meaning of the Act. For that, right from the time of recovery till examination of the samples, the link is required to be completely proved. Seals used on the samples must be intact and unbroken, and the said seals should tally with the sample of the seal taken separately at the time of sampling by the Investigating Officer to overrule every possibility of tampering with the contents of the samples.” 22. Seals used on the samples must be intact and unbroken, and the said seals should tally with the sample of the seal taken separately at the time of sampling by the Investigating Officer to overrule every possibility of tampering with the contents of the samples.” 22. Therefore, the prosecution’s case regarding the integrity of the case property would become suspect, and the learned Appellate Court was justified in doubting the prosecution’s case. 23. Thus, the learned Appellate Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused, and this Court will not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Appellate Court, even if another view is possible. 24. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and it is dismissed and so also the pending application(s), if any. 25. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) the respondent/accused is directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court which shall be effective for six months with a stipulation that in the event of a Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of the leave, the respondent/accused on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 26. Record of the learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment.