ORDER 1. This revision is directed against the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mungaoli to the Court of Sessions Jugge Guna. 2. The petitioners were convicted for the offences under sections 294 and 506 (Later Part) of I.P.C. and were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/- each and R.I. for one year. But on appeal, petitioner No.2 Mahendra Prasad was acquitted of the charge under section 506 (Later Part) of I.P.C., whereas, the conviction of petitioner No.2 Kishan alias Krishna Kumar under the above section was upheld. The conviction of petitioners under section 294, I.P.C., was maintained, but their sentences were modified. Petitioner No.2 Mahendra Prasad was instead directed to submit a surety in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- with his personal bond, to be of good behaviour for a period of two years and on the breach, he was required to present himself for undergoing the sentence. As regards petitioner No. 1 Kishan his sentence for the offence under section 506 (Later Part), IPC, was modified and instead of the sentence of R.I. for one year, he was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to undergo six months' S.I. The sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- under section 294, I.P.C., was found to be reasonable and was maintained. 3. The facts may be briefly narrated. On 29.9.89 at about 6.30 p.m. while complainant H.C. Mishra, the In-charge Principal of Government College, Chanderi, was returning to his house, on way, he was abused by the petitioners saying that he had the air of his being a Principal and had wrongly required their friend Shiv Narain to fill in his form in respect of copying and had also restricted their entry in the college. After the abuses, it was alleged that petitioner No. 1 Kishan took out a knife from his pocket, but at that relevant time, Sanjay Saraf, Mohammed Israr (PW 2), Ajay Shankar (PW 3) and some other students came at the spot and the petitioners fled away saying that they would kill the complainant. A report was lodged with the Police of the incident. 4. After the investigation the Police had filed the challan. At the trial, the prosecution examined complainant H.C. Mishra (PW 1), who has lodged the report with the Police, and PW 2 Mohammad Israr and Ajay Shankar (PW 3) as eye-witnesses. A report was lodged with the Police of the incident. 4. After the investigation the Police had filed the challan. At the trial, the prosecution examined complainant H.C. Mishra (PW 1), who has lodged the report with the Police, and PW 2 Mohammad Israr and Ajay Shankar (PW 3) as eye-witnesses. The Investigating Officer Narendra Singh was examined as PW 4. The witness of the prosecution Mohammad Israr (PW 2) stated in paragraph 1 of his statement that the In-charge Principal PW 1 H.C. Mishra was drunk at that time and was abusing the petitioners. He had also demanded the money from them for taking more liquor, but they did not accept his demand. The testimony of the witness that PW 1 was under the effect of liquor intoxication and was abusing the petitioners has gone unchallenged. The witness also stated that PW 1 had demanded money from the petitioners for taking liquor. Curiously, about the allegations against the petitioners, the witness has not stated a word, yet the witness was not declared hostile and the prosecution, therefore, seeks to rely on his version. 5. The other witness Ajay Shankar (PW 3) stated that the incident or quarrel or dispute never took place in his presence. The petitioners did not abuse PW.1 H.C. Mishra nor gave any threat to him. This witness has also not been declared hostile. Thus, remains the testimony of PW 1 alone about the allegations against the petitioners of incident. 6. No doubt that the conviction of an accused can be based on the sole testimony of the complainant, if he is found to be a wholly reliable witness and was not contradicted by the other evidence or the circumstances. In the instant case, the prosecution has come out with a specific story that had the witnesses not appeared at the scene, the incident might have been more serious as it was because of the presence of the witnesses that the petitioners had fled away from the spot after giving threat to complainant PW 1 H.C. Mishra. With this story when the other evidence is taken into consideration, on which the reliance is placed by the prosecution, as the two witnesses PW 2 Mohammad Israr and PW 3 Ajay Shankar have not been declared hostile, the version of PW 1 stands contradicted in the most material particulars. With this story when the other evidence is taken into consideration, on which the reliance is placed by the prosecution, as the two witnesses PW 2 Mohammad Israr and PW 3 Ajay Shankar have not been declared hostile, the version of PW 1 stands contradicted in the most material particulars. The version of PW 2 Mohammad Israr and PW 3 Ajay Shankar has gone unchallenged. 7. It is well settled that by offering a witness in evidence, a party is held to recommend him as worthy of credence. Generally as a rule it is not open to such party to test his credit or impeach his truthfulness. There may exist cases in which the rule may deserves to be relaxed at the discretion of the Court Where there is a surprise such as the witness unexpectedly turns hostile or in other such cases, the right to cross-examination 'ex adverso' is given. A party may with the permission of the Court, put leading questions to the witness under the provisions of section 143 or cross-examine him as to the matters mentioned in sections 145 and 146 of the Evidence Act. Section 154 of Evidence Act, permits the putting of questions, which might be put to him by the adverse party in his cross-examination. The provision is based on the principle to find out the truth, as the cross-examination is the most powerful and effective instrument for bringing out and testing the truth. 8. Lord Williams, J. has said-- "Sections 143 and 154, Evidence Act read together do not give power to the prosecution to put leading questions to their own witness, even with the assent of the Judge. The meaning of section 154 is that, they may with the permission of the Court, treat a witness as hostile and cross-examine him" But where a party does not opt to declare a witness hostile and does not seek the permission of the Court for the purpose, it has to be taken that the party places reliance on his testimony. 9. In the circumstances, the reliance for convicting and sentencing the petitioners cannot be placed on the sole testimony of PW 1 H.C. Mishra, which has been contradicted by PW 2 Mohammad Israr and PW 3 Ajay Shankar. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence cannot be maintained. 10. 9. In the circumstances, the reliance for convicting and sentencing the petitioners cannot be placed on the sole testimony of PW 1 H.C. Mishra, which has been contradicted by PW 2 Mohammad Israr and PW 3 Ajay Shankar. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence cannot be maintained. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition succeeds and the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioners is hereby set aside and the petitioners are acquitted of the charges.