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.
