( 1 ) THE appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28-1-1994 passed by the Special Judge, Bangalore have preferred this appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the same. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that P. W. 1-Sub-Inspector attached to Food Cell, Bangalore on 2-11-1990 at about 11 a. m got credible information that rice was being smuggled in kamakshipalya and in the surrounding areas. As such P. W. 1 was waiting along with panchas near Shivananda stores in Kamakshipalya at about 12 noon. At about 1. 00 p. m. a lorry came from North to South which was loaded with rice bags. P. W. 1 checked the lorry bearing No. MYN 4427 which contained 36 bags, each containing 100 kgs. of rice, 13 bags each containing 35 kgs. of rice. Accused 1, accused 2 and accused 4 ran away on seeing P. S..-P. W. 1. Accused 3 was caught by P. W. 1 and his staff. P. W. 1 made an enquiry and no document was produced. Hence he seized the lorry and the rice bags, and the mahazar is drawn as per Ex. P. 1. He produced accused 3 before P. W. 2 along with Ex. P. 2. The case was registered in Crime No. 357 of 1990. FIR was issued as per Ex. P. 3. The property was subjected to P. F. No. 141/1990 as per ex. P. 4. On 09-11-1990 as per the orders of the S. D. M. , P. W. 2 released the lorry and the goods to the accused 1-Vishkantegowda. Accused 1, 2 and 4 got themselves released by obtaining anticipatory bail from the Court. After the completion of the investigation charge sheet has been filed. ( 3 ) FOR the prosecution P. Ws. 1 and 2 are examined and got marked Exs. P1 to P4. For the defence D. Ws. 1 and 2 are examined and Exs. D1 to D9 are marked. ( 4 ) MR. Narayan Perdalkar learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution is unable to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; the mahazar is not proved and no independent witness is examined. On the other hand, Mr. Pavin, learned Government advocate supported the judgment and order of conviction. D1 to D9 are marked. ( 4 ) MR. Narayan Perdalkar learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution is unable to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; the mahazar is not proved and no independent witness is examined. On the other hand, Mr. Pavin, learned Government advocate supported the judgment and order of conviction. ( 5 ) AT the very outset it is to be seen whether the prosecution is able to prove the mahazar. In my opinion it has failed for the simple reason is that none of the panchas is examined. The prosecution has not assigned any reasons as to why it could not examine the panchas. Without the examination of the panchas it becomes difficult to rely upon the sole testimony of the investigating Officer. Even if the witness turns hostile it is necessary for the prosecution to examine the witness to prove the seizure, otherwise the testimony of the Police Officer suffers from want of corroboration. Of course, there is no bar to rely upon the testimony of the Police officer, even if the panch witness turns hostile. But in the case on hand neither the panch is examined nor any reason is assigned as to why the panch witness could not be examined. Hence, there is some force in the argument of Mr. Narayan who submitted that the seizure is not proved satisfactorily. The guilt has to be proved not by preponderance of probability but by beyond reasonable doubt. ( 6 ) IT is also pertinent to note that two defence witnesses are examined who have stated that they had sent the rice bags belonging to them to be delivered to their relatives. This also cannot be disbelieved as nothing is brought on the record to show that they are bent upon telling false. The learned Special Judge has lost sight of the fact about the impact of non-examination of the panch witnesses. Hence, the following order: in the result the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction is set aside. The bail bonds stand cancelled.