JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, J.:- This appeal is filed against an order of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Panota Sahib, District Sirmaur on February 7, 1995 in Criminal case No.10/3 of 1994. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on February 21,1993, PW-6 ASI Deep Ram along with police party was on patrol duty and was present on the bank of river Bata. There he received secret information that one Kuldeep Chand (respondent herein), was dealing in illicit liquor and was keeping and transporting it from village Bias to village Majra. He was also informed that if raid would be carried out immediately, the accused could be apprehended while carrying the said illegal activity. On receipt of the said secret information, ASI Deep Ram, in the company of S/Shri Pritam singh and Jamna Dass, constituted naka party. After some time, they saw accused Kuldeep Chand, who was carrying a bag on his head and was coming from Bias side. The accused was challenged by the naka party and was stopped. Inspection was carried out and it was found that he was having a tube containing 50 bottles of illicit liquor. Out of that, one nip was drawn as sample. The tube was tied form one end and put in a gunny bag. Nip as well as gunny bag both were then sealed with seal T and were taken in possession after preparation of memo Ex.PW-67A. Specimen impression of seal used was kept separately and after the use, it was handed over to Pritam Singh. Rukka was then sent to S.H.O., Police Station, Paonta Sahib with an endorsement. 3. F.I.R. No. 56/93 Ex.PW-5/A was then registered. After usual investigation, final report was prepared under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and forwarded to a competent Court. The accused was summoned and he was charged for committing an offence punishable under clause (a) of sub Section (1) of Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act as extended to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses including two independent witnesses PW-3 Jamna Dass and PW-7 Pritam Singh. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses including two independent witnesses PW-3 Jamna Dass and PW-7 Pritam Singh. Both the independent witnesses, however, did not support the case of the prosecution and with the permission of the Court, the Assistant Public Prosecutor was allowed to put questions which can be allowed in cross-examination. Even from the cross-examination by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, nothing material supporting the prosecution could be obtained. 5. Then remained the police officers. It was the case of the prosecution that PW-6 ASI Deep Ram had collected 50 bottles of illicit liquor from the accused in presence of police officials. It was further alleged that when the sample was taken and sealed, other police personnel was present. It was specifically admitted by PW-6 ASI Deep Ram in his evidence that when raid was carried out, other police officers were there. None of them was, however, examined by the prosecution. 6. The learned Magistrate, in the light of evidence of witnesses, observed as under: "As both these PWs denied the prosecution version in to, oh the request of Id. APP, they were declared hostile. Ld. APP cross examined them at length, but in vain. They denied making statements mark A and ‘Y’ before police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in-culpating the accused. No doubt, both of them are signatories to recovery memo Ext. PW-6/A, but with regard to it, PW-3 stated that his signatures were obtained on blank paper by, the police in the Police Post, whereas, PW-7 stated that neither this - document was read over to him nor he signed the same after admitting it to be correct. However, in cores examination conducted by Id. Defence counsel, he (PW-7) stated that his signatures were taken on the seizure memo by the police in Police Post, Majra, and he signed the same at the instance of the police-men. This way, depositions made by both these PWs make a big dent in the prosecution story." 7. The learned Magistrate was conscious of the fact that ASI Deep Ram had fully supported the prosecution. In view of the fact, however, that both the indepenedent witnesses had deposed against the prosecution, he thought it proper not to base conviction on the sole testimony of ASI Deep Ram and accordingly acquitted the accused. The said order is challenged in the present appeal. In view of the fact, however, that both the indepenedent witnesses had deposed against the prosecution, he thought it proper not to base conviction on the sole testimony of ASI Deep Ram and accordingly acquitted the accused. The said order is challenged in the present appeal. 8. Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant submitted that the learned Magistrate committed an error of law in not relying upon the testimony of ASI Deep Ram. It was submitted that evidence of Deep Ram was believeable and ought to have been accepted. It was urged that there is no law which requires that unless there is corroboration from other evidence, the Court cannot record conviction on the basis of a deposition of police officials. It was submitted that the order of acquittal, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Ms. Rama Mehta, leaned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. She submitted that apart from the fact that independent witnesses did not support the prosecution, even from the evidence of ASI Deep Ram, it is clear that several factors were not clarified by him. The witness admitted that the place was wide open, people used to come and go from the said place, though HC Kalyan Singh No. 135, Madan Singh No.266 and Sewa Singh No.227 were very much present and connected with the incident in question, none of them was examined; a copy of seizure memo, was not given to the accused; there was no mark of seal, which was applied at the time of raid; the witness was not in a position to identify the marks on the tube; the gunny bag was torn and it could not be identified as the same gunny bag etc. The defence counsel, therefore, submitted that no error of fact and/or of law can be said to have been committed by the trial court in acquitting the accused. 10. In paragraph 9, however, the learned Magistrate observed: "Of course, ASI Deep Ram has supported the prosecution version on oath, but his statement does not inspire confidence in view of the depositions made by PWs 3 and 7." 11. Now, as stated hereinabove, PW-3 Jamna Dass and PW-7 Pritam singh did not support the case of the prosecution. 10. In paragraph 9, however, the learned Magistrate observed: "Of course, ASI Deep Ram has supported the prosecution version on oath, but his statement does not inspire confidence in view of the depositions made by PWs 3 and 7." 11. Now, as stated hereinabove, PW-3 Jamna Dass and PW-7 Pritam singh did not support the case of the prosecution. At the prayer of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, therefore, permission was granted by the Court to the Assistant Public Prosecutor to put question which can be put to a witness in the cross examination. In those circumstances, in my opinion, the learned Magistrate was not right in rejecting the sworn testimony of PW-6 ASI Deep Ram solely on the ground that his evidence was not consistent with the evidence of other witnesses. When PW-3 and PW-7 did not support the prosecution as both of them were hostile witnesses, it was enjoined on the learned Magistrate to consider the sworn testimony of PW-6 ASI Deep Ram and to come to an independent conclusion whether his evidence was believable and it was not open to him to throw away his evidence only on the ground that the story put forward by him was not in conformity with the version of two eye witnesses who went round and did not stick to their earlier version. 12. To me, the law on the point is also well settled. Evidence on oath of a witness has to be tested on the touch stone of correctness or otherwise of the case put forward by the witness and the Court has to come to its own conclusion whether his testimony should or should not be believed. The Court may, in the light of attending circumstances, refuse to believe him or may not record conviction on such evidence. His evidence, however, should not be rejected or discarded on the ground that it is not in conformity with the evidence of other witnesses, who did not support the prosecution and were, therefore, declared as hostile witnesses. The law is otherwise. And it is that even when a witness is permitted to be cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. The law is otherwise. And it is that even when a witness is permitted to be cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, die witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto. In my opinion, therefore, the evidence of a witness, who is otherwise trustworthy and reliable, cannot be discarded being contrary to or in-consistent with hostile witnesses. Obviously, when the court permits the Assistant Public Prosecutor to cross-examine them, it is clear that the witnesses did not support the prosecution and that they had deposed contrary to what they had stated in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the code of Criminal Procedure. Such a state of affair, therefore, cannot be allowed by a Court of law for doubting and thereby destroying the case of the prosecution. The statement made by the learned Magistrate extracted hereinabove, hence, cannot be said to be strictly in consonance with law. 13. In the instant case, however, looking to various lacunae and inconsistencies as well as omissions in the evidence of ASI Deep Ram, by not relying on his lone testimony, the learned Magistrate has not committed any error of law and the order of acquittal, therefore, does not call for interference. 14. For the foregoing reasons, in my opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed and the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused stand cancelled Accordingly dismissed