1. This revision is for impugning the judgment dated 23.11.2001 passed by the Second Additional Sessiuns Judge. Bhind in Criminal Appeal No. 93/01 affirming the judgment of conviction dated 19th October, 2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind in criminal case No. 815/0 I, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 34 (2) of the Excise Act imposing one year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 25,000/-.

2. The facts in brief are that on 13th August, 200 I, 288 quarters of whiskey were recovered from the possession of petitioner. On prosecution, he has been convicted as aforesaid.

3. Shri Mishra, the learned advocate for the petitioner, has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that both the independent witnesses of the seizure memo have become hostile. On seizure memo (Ex. P-1) crime number appears written as 59/1 4th August, 200 I. Liquor of only 3 quarters has been tested. Seizing officer is the only witness who has stated against the petitioner. In aforementioned facts, he ought not to be believed, as observed by the apex Court in Mukhtiar Ahmed Anshan' v. State (N. C. T of Delhi) [2005 (3) Supreme 3