( 1 ) HEARD the counsel on record. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that except the evidence of P. W. 4, there is no other independent evidence relating to seizure and P. Ws. 1 and 2, the punch witnesses were declared hostile and hence the conviction recorded by the learned Judge cannot be sustained. The learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Botcha Raju v. State Represeted by Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural circled ( 2 ) PERCONTRA, the learned Additional Public prosecutor Sri Mohd. Omsan Shaheed, would sumit that merely because the punch witnesses were declared hostile, by that itself acquittal cannot be recorded. The evidence of Investigating Officer, if found to be trustworthy can definitely be relied upon. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Aher Raja Khima v. State of saurashtra Kalyani Ji Mavji and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal-IP and also in Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of M. P. . ( 3 ) HEARD both the Counsel ( 4 ) THE appellant-A-1 was charged with an offence under Section 7 and 8 of the Essential commodities Act r/w Clauses 3 and 12 (1) of a. P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order 1982. The learned Special Judge for E. C. Act Cases- cum-Sessions Judge in C. C. No. 9 of 1997, by judgment dated 23-4-1999, recorded acquittal as against A-2 and A-3, but, however convicted A-1-appellant herein to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs. 3000. 00 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two (2) months for the offence under Section 7 and 8 of the Essential commodities Act r/w clauses 3 and 12 (1) of A. P. Scheduled commodities Dealers (Licensing and distribution) Order 1982. Hence the criminal appeal. ( 5 ) THE prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 5 and Exs. P-1 to P-25 were marked and on behalf of the defence D. W. 1 was examined and Exs. D-1 to D-4 were marked. The case of the prosecution is as hereunder:- on 6-5-1995 at 3. 00 a. m. P. W. 4 sri B. Reddanna the then Inspector of police, V. C. C. S. D. , Cuddapah, P. W. 1 and 2 intercepted the oil tanker bearing no. D-1 to D-4 were marked. The case of the prosecution is as hereunder:- on 6-5-1995 at 3. 00 a. m. P. W. 4 sri B. Reddanna the then Inspector of police, V. C. C. S. D. , Cuddapah, P. W. 1 and 2 intercepted the oil tanker bearing no. GJ3-U-6057 near market yard godown at Kondapuram which was found transporting groundnut oil from kondapuram to Gujarat State. A-2 clerk of Sri Kiran oil mill, proddatur i. e. , A-1 was present in the cabin of the lorry. On enquiry, it was revealed that A-1 instructed A-2 to load groundnut oil at the oil mill of A-3 in kondapuram and take the same to Gujarath state in the oil tanker No. GJ3-U-6057. When the vigilance Inspector inspected the stock register, daybook, waybill book, he found them not maintained properly the vigilance Inspector found A-1 indulged in clandestine business of diverting the stocks into black market without maintaining true and correct accounts by showing huge variations in the stocks, besides indulging in clandestine transport of large quantity of groundnut oil from the other mill on the strength of the waybill. Vigilance Inspector also inspected the Venkateswara Oil Mill of a-2 in Kondapuram on the same day at 11. 15 p. m. and found A-3 absent and on verification of stock register, day book, way bill book, he noticed irregularities in their maintenance, corrections and over writings. He found a-1 to A-3 indulged in clandestine business and transport of groundnut oil of Rs. 10,000k. Gs. , to Gujarant State unauthorizedly. ( 6 ) P. WS. 1 and 2 are said to be mediators who had not supported the version of the prosecution. P. W. 3 is partner in Balaji Oil Mill at Cuddapah, who deposed that Vigilance police handed over 10,000 K. Gs of groundnut oil to him on 6-5-1995 underacknowledgment. P. W. 4 is the then Inspector of Police, v. C. C. S. D. , Cuddapah who had deposed that on 5-5-95 he intercepted an oil tanker bearing No. GJ3-U-6057 at Kondapuram village and found it transporting 10,000 K. Gs of groundnut oil to Anthuleswar of Gujarath state on a hire of Rs. 10,500. 00. He found A-2 in the lorry. P. W. 4 said that he seized the oil tanker along with waybills and weigment slip. 10,500. 00. He found A-2 in the lorry. P. W. 4 said that he seized the oil tanker along with waybills and weigment slip. He said that on verification of the waybill and sales note they did not contain any check post seals. He seized all the registers relating to the Sri Kiran Oil Mills-A-1. He also deposed that the day book of the Sri Kiran Oil Mills did not show the mention of 10,000 K. Gs of groundnut oil being transported to anthuleswar of Gujarath State through the oil tanker No. GJ3-U-6057 either on 5-5-95 or 6-5-95. P. W. 4 also deposed that he surprised the Venkateswara Oil Mill in kondapuram situated in D. No. 1/75-A i. e. , a-3 s mill. He verified the relevant stock register and way bills and found stock register containing so many corrections and strikings and over-writing. This witness also deposed that he found no entry relating to purchase of 10,000 K. Gs of groundnut oil from venkateswara Oil Mill, Kondapuram. P. W. 5 deposed that P. W. 4 investigated the case and since he was transferred he filed charge sheet in the said case. ( 7 ) D. W. 1 deposed that he owns an oil mill and Ac. 9. 00 of land and he will be selling groundnut seed to the oil mills of A-1 and he sold his seeds for Rs. 14,00. 00 per bag and he sold 14 bags on 6-5-95. D. W. 1 also deposed that he was paid Rs. 49,000. 00 at 10. a. m. after the clerk came and his signature was not taken. This witness also deposed that A-1 was alone present during that period. ( 8 ) THE learned Judge appreciated the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5 and also D. W. 1 and exs. P-1 to P-25 and Exs. D-1 to D-4 and relied upon the evidence of P. W. 4 and arrived at a conclusion that the guilt of appellant-a-1 alone had been proved and recorded conviction and also recorded acquittal against a-2 and A-3. ( 9 ) SUBMISSIONS at length were made by both the counsel. Except the evidence of investigating Officer-P. W. 4, there is no other independent evidence available on record, since P. Ws. 1 and 2, punch witnesses, were declared hostile and they had not supported the version of the prosecution. ( 9 ) SUBMISSIONS at length were made by both the counsel. Except the evidence of investigating Officer-P. W. 4, there is no other independent evidence available on record, since P. Ws. 1 and 2, punch witnesses, were declared hostile and they had not supported the version of the prosecution. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the evidence of d. W. 1 is also available on record. Be that as it may, though it can not be laid down as a general rule that the evidence of Investigating officer relating to search and seizure can not be believed at all. Under no circumstances, in the absence of independent evidence, it may not be safe to record a conviction. P. W. 4 specifically deposed about punch witnesses- p. Ws. 1 and 2 who had denied the version of the prosecution. On appreciation of the evidence of P. W. 4 and also the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 2, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction recorded as against a-1 also can not be sustained and hence the findings of the learned Judge recorded in this regard also can not be sustained and the said findings are hereby set aside and acquittal of a-1 is hereby recorded. ( 10 ) THE Criminal appeal is allowed. The appellant-A-1 is entitled to refund of fine amount, if any, paid by him.