K. B. SIDDAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THE accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the A. P. Excise Act. He was found possessing 15 bottles of Deshidaru, each containing 180 ml. P. W. 2 seized the bottles from the possession of the accused in the presence of mediators. Subsequently he gave report, took up investigation and filed charge-sheet. P. W. 1 is the mediator, who turned hostile. Other list witnesses were not examined. Now the entire case of the prosecution depends upon the evidence of p. W. 2, who is the complainant and the investigating Officer. Both the Courts below believed the evidence of P. W. 2 and found the accused guilty for the said offence. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that P. W. 2 being the complainant, cannot undertake the investigation. In this case this is done. Therefore, there is procedural irregularity and the benefit of doubt of this irregular procedure should be given to the accused. ( 3 ) IN support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Bhagwan Singh vs. The State of rajasthan. In that case it was held that the investigation by the Head Constable who was himself the person, to whom bribe was alleged to have been offered and who lodged the F. I. R. as informant or complainant was an infirmity which was bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case. ( 4 ) AGAIN reliance was placed on the judgment of Patna High Court reported in gholtu Modi and etc. , vs. State of Bihar. In this case it was held that:"it is the case of the prosecution that the police party while getting back from the patrolling duty had seen the accused persons in the said house near a Railway crossing. The house was still under construction and was only half built and at the back of the house, there is open field. Both the Counsel for the appellants have rightly submitted that in any view that place cannot be described as a lonely one, inasmuch as the time given was about 4 to 4. 30 a. m. , which also cannot be said to be an assemblage at an odd hour of night. Apart from it, the two independent witnesses did not support the prosecution version. Mr. 30 a. m. , which also cannot be said to be an assemblage at an odd hour of night. Apart from it, the two independent witnesses did not support the prosecution version. Mr. Laik while canvassing the case of the appellant gholtu Modi in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1984 has further condemned the very act of investigation and, in my opinion, rightly on the ground that the informant should not have taken up the investigation in his own hand, as he may not be impartial. The informant while investigating the case, must have made strenuous efforts to collect evidence in support of his statements made before the officer-in-charge of the police station to get laurels. " ( 5 ) THIS position of law is well settled. In this case P. W. 2 was informant rather the complainant. He himself took up the investigation and filed charge-sheet. Certainly, this is an infirmity in this case. There is no other evidence, the independent witness, turned hostile. Though other Police officers were cited as witnesses, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, they were given up. Now the only evidence available is that of P. W. 2 who was the complainant and also the Investigating officer. This certainly reflects the credibility of the investigation done in the matter. The prosecution cannot rely upon the evidence of P. W. 2 solely. The Courts below were not correct in relying upon this evidence. Hence, the benefit of this procedural irregularity is given to the accused. ( 6 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed and the accused is acquitted. The fine amount, if paid, is directed to be returned to the accused.