Order This is a revision petition by the ninth accused. Nine persons were charged for offences under Sections 489(A) , 489(B) , 489(C) and 489(D) of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court acquitted all the accused of the offences under Sections 489(A) and 489(B). It. acquitted accused 1 to 6 of offences under Sections 489(C) and 489(D). However, it convicted accused 7 and 9 of offences under those sections. 2. The seventh accused did not prefer any appeal. The ninth accused preferred an appeal and on appeal, the convictions and sentences were confirmed by judgment dated 18th December, 1981, by the Additional Sessions Judge of Tirunelveli. It is against the said judgment that the present revision has been preferred. 3. The main ground of revision is that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the recovery of some instruments and materials for forging and counterfeiting currency notes and on the confession leading to such a recovery and that such an evidence not properly corroborated was utterly insufficient for convicting a person for as important offences as those punishable under Sections 489(C) and 489(D). It was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner that the mahazar witness cited by the prosecution turned hostile and has deposed that they signed only on a blank paper. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that as per Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, police officer can seize any property, that such seizure need not be attested by another witness and that even if such attestation was made and the attestor turned hostile later on, that would not affect the value of the deposition of the Investigating Officer. He, therefore, concluded that the conviction could legally rest on the sole deposition of the Investigating Officer making recovery upon the confession made by the accused to him. 5. In the present case the Investigating Officer P.W.50 deposed that he was taken to the garden of the house belonging to the third accused and that from that place M.Os.36 to 46 were unearthed and recovered. Those material objects are tin box, mirror, one foot scale, rubber cylinder, plastic tin containing black ink, 4 tins containing ink, two wooden planks in the shape of ‘L’, screws, one box containing gum, one old book and two damaged twenty-rupees fake notes. Those material objects are tin box, mirror, one foot scale, rubber cylinder, plastic tin containing black ink, 4 tins containing ink, two wooden planks in the shape of ‘L’, screws, one box containing gum, one old book and two damaged twenty-rupees fake notes. These articles were seized under the cover of mahazar, Ex.P-69, which is purported to have been attested by P.W.43 who turned hostile. 6. It is true that conviction can be based on the deposition of a single witness. But, in that case, the deposition should be detailed, cogent and convincing. In addition, Courts usually require corroboration between some written statement made by the witness immediately after the occurrence and his deposition before the Court. For instance, when a fact is spoken to only by the victim of an injury, Courts would require that his deposition was in consonance with his first information report. Similarly, in order to clothe the deposition of the Investigating Officer with such corroboration, rules and orders have been to indicate how the report of seizure of property should be effected. Important instructions in that connection are found in the Madras Police Standing Order Nos.591 and 704, which are re-produced below. “591 (1) When any property is recovered by a Police Officer otherwise than on formal search of premises, a contemporaneous record of the facts relating to such recovery may be prepared by him in Form No.95 prescribed by order No.704 and may be attached by witnesses present at the time of such recovery. The record so made is admissible in evidence to corroborate the testimony of the Police Officer who prepared it or may be used to refresh his memory. The signatures of the attesting witnesses may be used in evidence only to corroborate the statement of the Police Officer that they were present at time of the recovery of the property and attested the record prepared by him. The statements which read as statements of persons other than the Police Officer who prepared the record should not be entered therein. The record should reach the Magistrate with the least possible delay. The statements which read as statements of persons other than the Police Officer who prepared the record should not be entered therein. The record should reach the Magistrate with the least possible delay. (2) When material facts which may be of value as evidence are observed by an Investigating Officer at the scene of offence or at any other place, he shall draw up in the presence of witnesses (who, wherever possible should be respectable inhabitants of the locality) present at the time when such facts are observed, a record of the facts, illustrated if necessary by a rough plan. The witnesses may sign the record after its contents have been read over and carefully explained to them. They may afterwards be cited in Court to prove the facts observed by them. 704. Form No.95 is used for sending property to the Magistrate. Three copies of the form should be prepared by means of carbon paper. The triplicate should be retained in the station and the remaining two copies sent to the Magistrate with the property. When the duplicate copy is received back from the Magistrate with his orders thereon, it should be pasted in the book and the triplicate copy removed and filed with the case diary.” 7. I shall now turn to scrutinize whether the mahazar prepared by the Investigating Officer would fulfil the necessary requirements to corroborate the sole evidence of the Investigating Officer. In the first place, the mahazar Ex.P-69 is not in Form 95. But, if at least it contained all the details indicated in Form 95, the same could be accepted. In the present case, very serious defects are noticed. Below the mahazar are found four signatures without indication why and in what capacity they have affixed their signatures. The order of the Magistrate on the mahazar is not found as required. There is no mention that the mahazar was prepared in triplicate and that the duplicate copy has been sent back by the Magistrate with his order thereon for being pasted in the book. So, Ex.P-69 does not possess the character of authenticity which is required for being worth of reliance and that important document becoming unreliable, the deposition of the Investigating Officer is deprived of the corroboration which is essential to sustain it. 8. So, Ex.P-69 does not possess the character of authenticity which is required for being worth of reliance and that important document becoming unreliable, the deposition of the Investigating Officer is deprived of the corroboration which is essential to sustain it. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that there was in the bundle a document which is called Form 91 and which is printed according to the requirements of Form 95. It is true that that document is, though numbered as Form 91 for reasons not disclosed, in conformity with Form 95. But, unfortunately for the prosecution, that document was not marked. Further, all the columns are not filled, no signature of the witness was obtained; when produced to the Magistrate it was returned for being produced again and there is no mention that it reached again the Magistrate and there is no mention of the order of the Magistrate subsequently. Therefore, the document may not be of any help to the prosecution and the fact remains that the evidence of the Investigating Officer is left without the corroboration required. 9. As far as witnesses to the mahazar are concerned, there is strictly speaking no necessity of any attesting witness. But, it is always available to have such an attestation so that the evidence of the Investigating Officer gets strengthened and can be relied on even if there is some deficiency in the other part of the evidence. That is why the Standing Order advises the Investigating Officer to have the mahazar attested by witnesses. When no witness is available, mention should be made in the report and it should be satisfactorily explained to the Court that under the circumstances it was not possible to secure any witness. When witnesses have attested, at least one of them should be produced before the Court to give positive evidence; if no such step could be taken, the Investigating Officer should tender explanation. It is needless to say that the Investigating Officer should only call, as witnesses, reliable persons and not satisfy himself with complainant witnesses susceptible of shifting loyalty and ready to oblige any person who solicit them. It is better to have ‘no witness’ than witnesses of that kind. 10. Before parting with this case, it is worth stating that Form 95 indicating what are the entries that should be made. It is better to have ‘no witness’ than witnesses of that kind. 10. Before parting with this case, it is worth stating that Form 95 indicating what are the entries that should be made. Naturally in the book the size of the Form would be as per the size of the book. If the Form is printed on the same size, the Investigating Officer would not find space to record all that is to be recorded. Therefore, while printing the Form, care should be taken to have the Form printed in the proper size with adequate space for each of the entries. My remark applies of course to all forms as well. It is necessary that the Investigating Officers have always a sufficient stock of printed forms and that the witnesses are called upon to sign under the word “Witnesses of seizure” printed. In that way, the witness cannot say later that he signed on a blank paper. If he turns to say that he signed on a form not filled up, he would have to explain why he signed as a witness for seizure. 11. To conclude, it is evident that in this case, the evidence of the Investigating Officer does not find corroboration in the mahazar on account of the mahazar having not been prepared with sufficient care and caution. If therefore follows that there is no sufficient evidence for convicting the ninth accused. 12. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The convictions and sentences are set aside. B.S. ----- Revision Petition allowed.