( 1 ) THIS petition under sub section (4) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal procedure is filed by the complainant seeking leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated 28th July 1987 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences in C. C. No. 26/87.

( 2 ) THE learned trial judge has rejected the evidence of P. W. 2-the E. S. I. Inspector and Ex. P. 7 prepared by him. Consequently, he has held that the complainant has failed to prove that the accused had employed 20 employees in its establishment and as such was liable to comply with the provisions of the E. S. I. Act and failure to do so did amount to an offence punishable under Section 85 (a) and (f) of the E. S. I. Act. Accordingly, he has acquitted the accused.

( 3 ) SRI M. Papanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken us through the order of the trial court and has also produced a xerox copy of Ex. P. 7. The case of the petitioner depends upon the evidence of P. W. 2 and Ex. P. 7. It is submitted that the trial court is not justified in rejecting the evidence of P. W. 2 on the ground that he is an interested witness and without corroboration his evidence cannot be accepted.

( 4 ) THE learned trial judge, no doubt, has observed in para 6 of his order thus :''except the interested testimony of p. W. 2, who is an Inspector, and the list Ex. P. 7 prepared by him, there is no other material on record to show that 20 persons had been employed by the accused person in his establishment. But he has also considered the evidence of P. W. 2 and the list Ex. P. 7 prepared by him on merits. It is noticed by the learned trial judge that even as per the evidence of P. W. 2 there were many customers in the hotel of the accused when P. W 2 visited and prepared Ex. P. 7. The signature of none of them was obtained. It is also further noticed by the learned trial judge that the list Ex. P. 7 does not contain necessary particulars. He has also further noticed that the accused has produced the register of employees, maintained by him which contained the names of only 9 employees. Thus the learned trial judge has weighed the evidence of P. W. 2 and Ex P. 7 and has not rejected them outright merely on the ground that there is no corroborative evidence. "

( 5 ) SECTION 134 of the Evidence Act provides that 'no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact'? The testimony of a single witness, if believed, is sufficient to establish any fact. The section is based on the maxim that the evidence is to be 'weighed' and not 'counted'. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence that the court is concerned. A decision may be based on the evidence of a single witness. it is more so when it relates to the proof of the act done by a public officer in the discharge of his official duties. No doubt P W, 2 in the discharge of his official duty, visited the hotel of the accused and prepared the list as per Ex. P, 7 of persons alleged to have been employed by him in his hotel. if the list has contained all the material particulars relating to each of the persons whose names are found in Ex. P. 7 along with their signatures, there would not have been any difficulty in accepting ex. P. 7 and the evidence of P. W. 2. On a perusal of Ex. P. 7 we are satisfied that it does not inspire confidence. If really as claimed by P. W. 2, he counted the heads and on verification he prepared the list Ex. P. 7, in the normal course, he would have entered all the particulars of the employment of each one of them and obtained their signatures. If there were other persons present, other than the employees at that time, the signatures of atleast two of them had been obtained as attestors it would have lent greater credence to the document. Ex P. 7 does not contain the requisite information. In respect of some of the employees, even the father's name is not mentioned i. e. , si Nos 14,19 and 20. A list of employees prepared by the E. S I. Inspec