Judgment 1. This revision is preferred against judgment dated 27-08-2007 in Crl.A.No.41/2006 on the file of Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad whereunder judgment dated 12-07-2006 in C.C.No.50/2003 on the file of Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Trial of Prohibition & Excise Offences, Nizamabad was confirmed. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this revision are as follows:- On 05-07-2002, at about 4:30 P.M., P.W.1 during inspection proceeded to Govindapalli with his staff and mediators and found A1 selling toddy and that the licence was expired by 31-03-2007 and that there was stock of two wooden crates each crate containing 24 bottles, filled with toddy of 650 ml each and also two cement vats of 100 liters capacity each filled with toddy and that he collected toddy into test tube and conducted test, which resulted that toddy was adulterated with Chloral Hydrate. Then he has drawn three samples into bottles and sealed them as per procedure and thereafter, went to Excise Station and registered case and the collected sample sent for chemical analysis and on receipt of the Chemical Examiner’s report, charge sheet was filed against A1 and licence holders of A2 & A3. During trial, as A2 was not available, case against him was separated and trial is proceeded against A1 & A3. On behalf of prosecution, three witnesses are examined and five documents are marked besides one material object. On a overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court found both A1 & A3 guilty for the offence under Section 7 (a) read with Section 8 (e) of A.P Prohibition Act and sentenced them to suffer five years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and aggrieved by the same, they preferred appeal to the Court of Session, Nizamabad and Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad dismissed the appeal and reduced five years imprisonment into two years while confirming the fine. Now aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Advocate for revision petitioners submitted that except the self-serving testimony of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to prove the allegations against the revision petitioners. He submitted that even according to prosecution, only A1 was found selling toddy and A2 & A3 are charge sheeted as they are licences holders. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Advocate for revision petitioners submitted that except the self-serving testimony of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to prove the allegations against the revision petitioners. He submitted that even according to prosecution, only A1 was found selling toddy and A2 & A3 are charge sheeted as they are licences holders. He submitted that both trial Court and appellate Court accepted the evidence of P.W.1 on the ground that it is convincing and trustworthy. But when his evidence creates some doubt, accepting such evidence without corroboration is not correct. He submitted that both Courts have committed error in convicting the revision petitioners and the same is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both trial Court and appellate Court have rightly convicted the revision petitioners and that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings. 5. Now the point that would arise for my consideration is whether judgments of the Courts below are legal, proper and correct? 6. Point:- According to prosecution, on 05-07-2002, during inspection, A1 was found selling toddy and that P.W.1 enquired him about the license particulars, for which, he produced the licence and on verification, it is found that one licence was in the name of A2 and the other licence was in the name of A3. According to prosecution, this P.W.1 collected some toddy into test tube and conducted test there, which revealed that the toddy contain Chloral Hydrate, therefore, he has drawn three samples and sent one such sample for analysis and the analyst certified that the toddy was adulterated. Out of three witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the Inspector of Excise, who conducted raid and complainant himself, P.W.2 is the mediator and P.W.3 is the officer who filed charge sheet. Mediator P.W.2 has not supported the prosecution case and the evidence of P.W.3 is to the limited extent of filing charge sheet. So the only evidence for the prosecution is that of P.W.1. P.W.1 in his cross-examination deposed that he has not enquired about the ownership of the premises, where the toddy was being sold. He further deposed that he does not know as to how many counters are there in the said toddy shop. He further deposed that he noticed four or five persons in the shop, but he has not enquired them as they were in a drunken condition. He further deposed that he does not know as to how many counters are there in the said toddy shop. He further deposed that he noticed four or five persons in the shop, but he has not enquired them as they were in a drunken condition. He further deposed that he has not mentioned the names of the above persons in the panchanama. He further deposed that he has not examined neighbours of the toddy shop. According to prosecution, this P.W.1, after drawing three samples, has destroyed the remaining toddy as it is not fit for human consumption, but in the cross-examination, he has stated that he has not recorded this fact in the panchanama. It is further stated that he has not mentioned the boundaries of the toddy shop in the panchnama. He denied the suggestion that according to rules under the Prohibition Act, the samples have to be collected in clean mud pots. He further stated in the cross-examination that he has not mentioned in the panchanama about the quantity of the toddy collected as sample. According to P.W.1, there are two licences for these two shops one is in the name of A2 and the other is in the name of A3 and there are some counters in the toddy shop, but he noticed only two counters and he has no knowledge about the total number of counters. According to this witness, there are four or five customers in the shop by the time he reached there. But he stated that he has not examined them as they were in a drunken state. If really, that version is a true fact, it would have been reflected in the mediators’ report. Admittedly, no such mention is made in the mediators’ report. The boundaries to the property, which was inspected on 05-07-2002 is not recorded in the panchanama. It is specifically suggested to P.W.1 that he has not visited the said place and the case is foisted for statistical purpose. Now except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other witness to support the prosecution case as the mediator examined has not supported the prosecution case. As seen from the mediators’ report, two mediators were taken along with P.W.1, the other mediator is not examined by prosecution. Now except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other witness to support the prosecution case as the mediator examined has not supported the prosecution case. As seen from the mediators’ report, two mediators were taken along with P.W.1, the other mediator is not examined by prosecution. When one mediator has not supported the prosecution case, non-examination of other mediator is fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when the other two witnesses are only official witnesses. Here this P.W.1 is the complainant himself and also investigating officer. P.W.3 has not conducted any investigation, he simply filed charge sheet, after receipt of analyst report. So as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, convicting the revision petitioners for a grave offence, which has got minimum sentence, on the sole self-serving testimony of defacto-complainant-cum-investigating officer is not at all correct. Particularly, when the evidence of P.W.1 creates some doubt as to the correctness of his search on 05-07-2002, both trial Court and appellate Court have grossly erred in accepting the evidence of P.W.1, without any corroboration. In fact, this objection was raised before the trial Court, but the learned trial Judge referring to Section 134 of Evidence Act observed that as there is no quantum fixing the minimum number of witnesses, the Court can act on the solitary testimony. No doubt, there is no quantum fixing any number of witnesses to be examined and solitary testimony can be accepted. But that solitary testimony should be free from all doubts highly trustworthy and convincing. But here this P.W.1 being the complainant and investigating officer is naturally interested in getting a conviction. He cannot be treated as an independent witness and he cannot be compared on par with a proseuctorix in a rape case or a victim in an offence of outraging the modesty of woman. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that both trial Court and appellate Court have committed error in relying on solitary testimony of P.W.1 for convicting the revision petitioners and therefore, the judgments of Courts below are liable to be set aside. 7. For the reasons stated above, revision is allowed and conviction recorded against the revision petitioners by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court is hereby set aide and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 7. For the reasons stated above, revision is allowed and conviction recorded against the revision petitioners by the trial Court and upheld by the appellate Court is hereby set aide and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the fine amount shall be refunded to them. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case, shall stand dismissed.