JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is against the order dated 24-8-1978 of the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed but his conviction was altered from section 54 (d) to 54 (c) and further his conviction was maintained under section 54 (a) of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts are these. That on 6-8-78 Kalyan Singh, Excise Inspector went near the field of Swaroop Singh and Moola Singh. He saw that one Nanak and the petitioner were manufacturing illicit liquor. The petitioner was putting fuel wood in the oven. The petitioner and Nanak on seeing the Excise party ran away. The Excise Party recovered the working still and some illicit wash and sealed them. At this stage it may be observed that the only evidence about the identity of the petitioner regarding the manufacture of illicit liquor in the manner stated by the prosecution is P. W. 4 Ramratan. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is extremely unsafe in the circumstances of the case to rely on the bare sole oral testimony of P. W. 4 Ramratan to find the petitioner guilty. It is unsafe to convict the petitioner in these circumstances. There is no circumstantial evidence against the petitioner to corroborate the statement of P.W. 4 Ramratan and it could be a case of mistaken identity. This aspect of the case totally escaped the notice of the trial court and the appellate courts resulting in a gross miscarriage of justice. 4. I have considered the argument carefully which in my opinion should prevail. P. W. 4 Ramratan in the first instance is an employee of the Excise department. That apart, it appears from the statement that he claims to have identified the petitioner while the latter was running. The prosecution story is that the excise party was in a Jeep which was stopped at a distance of about 1,1/2 Kms. from the scene of the incident, P.W. 4 further admitted that from the place where the jeep was stopped the scene of incident was not visible. It has also not come in the prosecution evidence that from what distance Ramratan saw the petitioner while he was running. In such circumstances in my opinion it is difficult to place any reliance on the statement of P.W. 4 Ramratan. It has also not come in the prosecution evidence that from what distance Ramratan saw the petitioner while he was running. In such circumstances in my opinion it is difficult to place any reliance on the statement of P.W. 4 Ramratan. It is an admitted position that D. W. 1 Harnam Singh accompanied the Excise party and he has clearly stated that only the still, of illicit liquor and wash were recovered from the scene of the incident but none was seen running away from there. This causes a further doubt in the solitary statement of P.W. 4 Ramratan. The question of identity depends on various factors namely, the previous acquaintance, visibility, the distance from which the accused was seen and a fair opportunity of seeing him. It is, therefore, difficult to place any reliance on the solitary statement of P.W. 4 Ramratan that he identified the petitioner while he was running specially when he did not state the distance from which he saw the petitioner running. The excise party consisted of a number of persons, and if it had the opportunity to identify the petitioner, he should have been put to test identification for those persons who did not know him since before, and this was not done in this case. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that it is extremely unsafe to convict the petitioner on the solitary statement of P. W. 4 Ramratan and in any case the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt. 5. In the result, the revision petition is accepted. The petitioner is acquitted of the offences under sections 54 (a) & (c) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, and his sentence is set aside. The petitioner is on bail and need not surrender to his bail bonds which are hereby cancelled. Sd/- S. N. Deedwania, J.Revision Accepted, Petitioner Acquitted. *******