Short Note : 1. The petitioners are cultivators of village, Badera-Sopan, police-station Pandokbar, tahsildar Bhander, in Gwalior District. So is Kedarnath (PW 1). There is no love lost between them. Kedarnath (PW 1) owns Khasra No. 57 in the village. On 18-12-1971, he filed a complaint before the Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, that on 21-10-1971, the petitioners committed theft of his entire standing crop of Jwar, Mung and Tilli from the field thereby making him poorer by Rs.400. Held: I may pause here to elaborate that the enmity between Kedarnath (PW 1) and the petitioners is far too deep-rooted to be lost sight of. They belong to rival factions in the village. Kedarnath (PW 1) at the relevant time was the Vice-Chairman of the Janapad Sabha. He was also Sarpanch of the village Panchayat. Bhailal father of Kedarnath (PW 1) was the President of the Committee of Patrons of the Higher Secondary School in the village. Ambikaprasad (PW 3) was the Chairman of the Executive Committee of this school. Krishnagopal (PW 5) was employed as a clerk therein. Kedarnath (PW 1) had fought an election against the petitioner Dayaram Its off-shoot, by way of an election petition, was then pending. In addition, Kedarnath (PW1), Sura (PW 2) and Krishnagopal (PW 5) were facing a Criminal action at the instance of the petitioners Jaikishan and Dayaram. Kedarnath (PW 1) and Krishnagopal (PW 5) were also proceeded against under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Not only that, Sura (PW 2) had often been a witness for Kedarnath (PW 1) and vice versa. It will, thus, be seen that Kedarnath (PW 1) has picked up for evidence in support of his case only those of hill party men who besides being close to him are at daggers-drawn with the petitioners. When evidence come from tainted sources such as these, it is unsafe to act on it without independent corroboration in material particulars. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has blamed the petitioners for not seeking any explanation from Sura (PW 2) for his failure to report the incident at the police-station Pandokhar, quite overlooking the fact that it was part of the duty of Sura to inform the police about commission of any cognizable offence in the village. His failure was, thus, in the nature of dereliction of duty. His failure was, thus, in the nature of dereliction of duty. Moreover the explanation provided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on Sura (PW 2)'s behalf is not at all convincing. It is that since Kedarnath (PW1) had already posted a report. it was not necessary for Sura (PW 2) to do so over and against. This takes for granted something which is not there. 3. In the face of infirmities galore, it was dangerously unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of Sura (PW 2). His story is neither natural nor probable. It is artificial and tainted. The same is the case about the supporting evidence. And then that delay of nearly two months in taking the matter to the Court and, that too, without taking the police into confidence when the offence alleged was a cognizable one. Taken all in all, I find this to be a case in which interference in revision is certainly called for in the interest of justice. The petition of revision is, therefore, allowed and the convictions and sentences of the petitioners under section 379 IPC are set aside. Revision allowed.