D.B. Lal, J.
1. This appeal against acquittal is brought from the judgment dated November 5, 1974 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jullundur in a case under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act. The prosecution case was that on February 4, 1972, at Jullundur, Head Constable Ram Sarup and Foot Constable Bachan Singh were on patrol duty and they happened to apprehend Chuni Lal who was found in possession of illicit liquor, contained in a rubber bladder. The Head Constable wrote down a ruqa to 5-45 p. m. and the formal First Information Report was recorded at the Police Station at 6-15 p. m. On the basis of that recovery a case under Section 61 (1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act was instituted against Chuni Lal.
2. The prosecution produced Head Constable Ram Sarup (PW2) and Foot Constable Bachan Singh (PW 1). The learned Sessions Judge considered the statements of these witnessses and found that they were wholly discrepant. He accordingly expressed his opinion that there was a feeling of a reasonable doubt. Hence, Chuni Lal could not be prosecuted for the offence alleged against Mm. Being aggrieved by that order, the State has filed the present appeal.
3. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, more compelling reasons are required to take a different view than the one taken by the Court below. If, on the evidence on the record, two reasonable views were probable one in favour of the prosecution and the other In favour of the defence the latter view will have to be accepted. In fact, in order to succeed in an appeal against acquittal, each and every argument advanced on behalf of the defence before the Court below has to be reasonably answered and there should be a cogent finding that the decision regarding acquittal was perverse and had resulted in denial of justice. We have carefully gone through the statements of the two witnesses and since the discrepancies pointed out were of a pretty serious nature, the first appellate Court disbelieved the two witnesses. It is hardly a case where a different view can be taken by us, specially in an appeal against acquittal. We, therefore, consider that there is no Merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed.